Details
- Reviewers
kcc eugenis alekseyshl vitalybuka - Commits
- rG137c9c2a6a77: [sanitizer_common] Fuchsia-specific implementation of SanitizerCoverage
rCRT309797: [sanitizer_common] Fuchsia-specific implementation of SanitizerCoverage
rL309797: [sanitizer_common] Fuchsia-specific implementation of SanitizerCoverage
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rL LLVM
Event Timeline
LGTM, please let others to check
lib/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_coverage_libcdep_new.cc | ||
---|---|---|
17 ↗ | (On Diff #108184) | To other reviewers: |
What about tests?
(Well, this probably applies to all fuchsia-related patches).
It's sad that you had to copy-paste this much code, but as long as the Fuchsia teams supports this code (and we don't have to) -- ok.
lib/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_coverage_fuchsia.cc | ||
---|---|---|
32 ↗ | (On Diff #108184) | Include sanitizer_platform.h then immediately test for SANITIZER_FUCHSIA. That way you don't re-parse as many files. |
lib/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_coverage_libcdep_new.cc | ||
17 ↗ | (On Diff #108184) | Same as above. |
17 ↗ | (On Diff #108184) | Indeed. I think we should use CMake whenever the test is easy (host OS, target os, etc). But some tests are more involved and are better off being done after all the includes, I guess. |
lib/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_coverage_fuchsia.cc | ||
---|---|---|
32 ↗ | (On Diff #108184) | Other files are inconsistent in whether they do this, so I took the one that's shorter. |
lib/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_coverage_libcdep_new.cc | ||
17 ↗ | (On Diff #108184) | From what I've seen, the vast majority of cases are unconditional in cmake and use #if around the whole file, so that's the model I followed. |