This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [google] Backport ThreadSanitizer instrumentation pass from google/main to google/gcc-4_6 (issue 5610048)
- From: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>
- To: dvyukov at google dot com, aaw at google dot com, dnovillo at google dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, reply at codereview-hr dot appspotmail dot com
- Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 08:44:48 -0800
- Subject: Re: [google] Backport ThreadSanitizer instrumentation pass from google/main to google/gcc-4_6 (issue 5610048)
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 06:01, <email@example.com> wrote:
> Here I create a declaration for a var that is defined in our run-time
> library. If I use some real location, then the declaration will have
> different irrelevant locations in each TU (irrelevant, because it will
> be somewhere near begin of a first instrumented function), + there will
> be the definition with a correct location (inside of our run-time
> library). Does it make sense? The current situation (a lot of
> declarations with unknown location + definition with correct location)
> looks OK IMVHO.
Ah, OK. In that case, that's fine.
> Does it make sense to set location for all tree's? I can't extract
> location from the sequence, because it's NULL (however, of course, I
> still can pass all the way down).
Just the statements. I had missed the location setting you do at the
end. That is fine.