On 12/02/2015 05:55 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
Can you point to some concrete coding style violations (besides
function comments)?
(flag_sanitize & (SANITIZE_ADDRESS | SANITIZE_THREAD \
- | SANITIZE_UNDEFINED | SANITIZE_NONDEFAULT)))
+ | SANITIZE_UNDEFINED | SANITIZE_NONDEFAULT) \
+ || flag_sanitize_coverage))
The || should line up with the other condition (i.e. the part starting
with flag_sanitize).
+unsigned sancov_pass (function *fun)
Split the line after the return type.
+
+template<bool O0>
+class pass_sancov : public gimple_opt_pass
+{
This seems to be a new idiom but I find it OK. One thing to consider
would be whether you really need this split between O0/optimize
versions, or whether you can find a place in the queue where to insert
it unconditionally. Have you considered this at all or did you just
follow asan/tsan?
+public:
+ static pass_data pd ()
+ {
+ static const pass_data data =
I think a static data member would be better than the unnecessary pd ()
function. This is also unlike existing practice, and I wonder how others
think about it. IMO a fairly strong case could be made that if we're
using C++, then this sort of thing ought to be part of the class definition.
Bernd