Re: [PATCH] D21695: [clang] Version support for UBSan handlers

2016-12-13 Thread Andrew Ford via cfe-commits
It does have c++11, but some functions are missing. I don't know the details of which ones are missing or why, have only seen std::to_string be a problem so far. On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 11:05 AM Filipe Cabecinhas < filcab+llvm.phabrica...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Vedant! > Andrew: does

Re: [PATCH] D21695: [clang] Version support for UBSan handlers

2016-12-12 Thread Filipe Cabecinhas via cfe-commits
Thanks Vedant! Andrew: does Android not support C++11? I don't understand why it wouldn't have these funcions. Thank you, Filipe On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 at 18:58, Vedant Kumar wrote: > > > > On Dec 12, 2016, at 10:17 AM, Andrew Ford via Phabricator < > revi...@reviews.llvm.org>

Re: [PATCH] D21695: [clang] Version support for UBSan handlers

2016-12-12 Thread Vedant Kumar via cfe-commits
> On Dec 12, 2016, at 10:17 AM, Andrew Ford via Phabricator > wrote: > > andrewford added a comment. > > This broke the build on android due to use of std::to_string. Would someone > mind changing it to llvm::to_string, I don't have commit access to change it >

[PATCH] D21695: [clang] Version support for UBSan handlers

2016-12-12 Thread Andrew Ford via Phabricator via cfe-commits
andrewford added a comment. This broke the build on android due to use of std::to_string. Would someone mind changing it to llvm::to_string, I don't have commit access to change it myself. Thanks! Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D21695

[PATCH] D21695: [clang] Version support for UBSan handlers

2016-12-12 Thread Filipe Cabecinhas via Phabricator via cfe-commits
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rL289444: [clang] Version support for UBSan handlers (authored by filcab). Changed prior to commit: https://reviews.llvm.org/D21695?vs=61817=81089#toc Repository: rL LLVM

[PATCH] D21695: [clang] Version support for UBSan handlers

2016-11-29 Thread Vedant Kumar via Phabricator via cfe-commits
vsk accepted this revision. vsk added a reviewer: vsk. vsk added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. Thanks for working on this. LGTM with a nit. Comment at: lib/CodeGen/CGExpr.cpp:2506 + assert(CheckHandler >= 0 && + CheckHandler <

[PATCH] D21695: [clang] Version support for UBSan handlers

2016-11-29 Thread Filipe Cabecinhas via Phabricator via cfe-commits
filcab added a comment. Ping! https://reviews.llvm.org/D21695 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Re: [PATCH] D21695: [clang] Version support for UBSan handlers

2016-08-17 Thread Filipe Cabecinhas via cfe-commits
filcab added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D21695#514080, @vsk wrote: > Running sanitized programs in production sounds strange to me. But, if there > isn't really a cost to supporting this, I suppose it's fine. It does, and most likely this change wouldn't affect them, as I would

Re: [PATCH] D21695: [clang] Version support for UBSan handlers

2016-08-12 Thread Vedant Kumar via cfe-commits
vsk added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D21695#513723, @filcab wrote: > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D21695#510788, @vsk wrote: > > > After reading through the discussion in https://reviews.llvm.org/D19668, I > > don't think I understood the pros/cons of using a single ABI check (like

Re: [PATCH] D21695: [clang] Version support for UBSan handlers

2016-08-12 Thread Filipe Cabecinhas via cfe-commits
filcab added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D21695#510788, @vsk wrote: > After reading through the discussion in https://reviews.llvm.org/D19668, I > don't think I understood the pros/cons of using a single ABI check (like asan > does) versus adding version numbers to each handler

Re: [PATCH] D21695: [clang] Version support for UBSan handlers

2016-08-09 Thread Vedant Kumar via cfe-commits
vsk added a subscriber: vsk. vsk added a comment. After reading through the discussion in https://reviews.llvm.org/D19668, I don't think I understood the pros/cons of using a single ABI check (like asan does) versus adding version numbers to each handler routine. With the latter approach,

Re: [PATCH] D21695: [clang] Version support for UBSan handlers

2016-08-09 Thread Filipe Cabecinhas via cfe-commits
filcab added a comment. Ping! https://reviews.llvm.org/D21695 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[PATCH] D21695: [clang] Version support for UBSan handlers

2016-06-24 Thread Filipe Cabecinhas via cfe-commits
filcab created this revision. filcab added reviewers: kcc, samsonov, rsmith. filcab added a subscriber: cfe-commits. This adds a way for us to version any UBSan handler by itself. The patch overrides D21289 for a better implementation (we're able to rev up a single handler). After this, then we