rnk added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D32064#726861, @pcc wrote:
> I think it would be better to move this logic to the driver and have it pass > in an `-mllvm` flag. The sanitizer passes should really be taking no > arguments in the constructor like the other passes, so I don't want us to add > another argument here. That seems like the opposite of the direction we've been moving, though. cl::opt flags can't appear twice, and this means one process can't do two asan compilations in two LLVMContexts in parallel with different settings. ================ Comment at: lib/Driver/SanitizerArgs.cpp:636 + case llvm::Triple::COFF: + return DataSections; + case llvm::Triple::ELF: ---------------- We can return true for COFF here. By adding a comdat during asan instrumentation, we effectively implement -fdata-sections ourselves. If the user really wanted -fno-data-sections for some reason, they're out of luck right now. Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D32064 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
