cis line endings in NOBUG-20180313-fixnames-61a1.patch

mozilla-release/patches/NOBUG-20180313-fixnames-61a1.patch

@@ -5,48 +5,48 @@
 # Node ID 81c22c501c2a9f18a33398a97cc7c43144349223
 # Parent  a049e86626d465013bb409180fee85d9c7154aa7
 Fix the attribute names in the comments in the sanitizer blacklists to the final adopted names.  No bug, r=sparky
-
-diff --git a/build/sanitizers/ubsan_signed_overflow_blacklist.txt b/build/sanitizers/ubsan_signed_overflow_blacklist.txt
---- a/build/sanitizers/ubsan_signed_overflow_blacklist.txt
-+++ b/build/sanitizers/ubsan_signed_overflow_blacklist.txt
-@@ -3,17 +3,17 @@
- # -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow.  C/C++ say signed integer overflow is
- # undefined behavior, so instances of this need to be fixed.  But not all code
- # has been properly written to not overflow, and overflow-checking can have
- # significant compile time and runtime costs, so we will sometimes  disable
- # signed overflow checking.
- #
- # The rules in this file are applied at compile time; changes to this list
- # usually require a full rebuild to apply. If you can modify the source in
--# question to exempt individual functions using MOZ_NO_SANITIZE_SINT_OVERFLOW,
-+# question to exempt specific functions using MOZ_NO_SANITIZE_SIGNED_OVERFLOW,
- # do that instead.
- #
- # The extensive number of entries below is for two reasons.
- #
- # First, compiler instrumentation for signed integer overflows has a cost, at
- # compile time and at runtime.  In performance-critical code proven to have no
- # signed overflow, it makes sense to turn off overflow detection to avoid both
- # costs.  (Indeed, -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow is unusably slow without
-diff --git a/build/sanitizers/ubsan_unsigned_overflow_blacklist.txt b/build/sanitizers/ubsan_unsigned_overflow_blacklist.txt
---- a/build/sanitizers/ubsan_unsigned_overflow_blacklist.txt
-+++ b/build/sanitizers/ubsan_unsigned_overflow_blacklist.txt
-@@ -2,17 +2,17 @@
- # frequent *un*signed integer overflows in our codebase, found by the use of
- # -fsanitize=unsigned-integer-overflow.  Such overflows are not necessarily
- # bugs -- unsigned integer overflow has well-defined semantics in C/C++.  But
- # overflow may still be *unexpected* and incorrectly handled, so we try to
- # annotate those places where unsigned overflow is correct and desired.
- #
- # The rules in this file are applied at compile time; changes to this list
- # usually require a full rebuild to apply. If you can modify the source in
--# question to exempt individual functions using MOZ_NO_SANITIZE_UINT_OVERFLOW,
-+# question to exempt specific functions using MOZ_NO_SANITIZE_UNSIGNED_OVERFLOW,
- # do that instead.
- #
- # The extensive number of entries below is for two reasons.
- #
- # First, compiler instrumentation for unsigned integer overflows has a cost, at
- # compile time and at runtime.  In places where code expects and depends upon
- # overflow behavior -- and especially in performance-critical code -- it makes
- # sense to turn off overflow detection to avoid both costs.  (Indeed,
+
+diff --git a/build/sanitizers/ubsan_signed_overflow_blacklist.txt b/build/sanitizers/ubsan_signed_overflow_blacklist.txt
+--- a/build/sanitizers/ubsan_signed_overflow_blacklist.txt
++++ b/build/sanitizers/ubsan_signed_overflow_blacklist.txt
+@@ -3,17 +3,17 @@
+ # -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow.  C/C++ say signed integer overflow is
+ # undefined behavior, so instances of this need to be fixed.  But not all code
+ # has been properly written to not overflow, and overflow-checking can have
+ # significant compile time and runtime costs, so we will sometimes  disable
+ # signed overflow checking.
+ #
+ # The rules in this file are applied at compile time; changes to this list
+ # usually require a full rebuild to apply. If you can modify the source in
+-# question to exempt individual functions using MOZ_NO_SANITIZE_SINT_OVERFLOW,
++# question to exempt specific functions using MOZ_NO_SANITIZE_SIGNED_OVERFLOW,
+ # do that instead.
+ #
+ # The extensive number of entries below is for two reasons.
+ #
+ # First, compiler instrumentation for signed integer overflows has a cost, at
+ # compile time and at runtime.  In performance-critical code proven to have no
+ # signed overflow, it makes sense to turn off overflow detection to avoid both
+ # costs.  (Indeed, -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow is unusably slow without
+diff --git a/build/sanitizers/ubsan_unsigned_overflow_blacklist.txt b/build/sanitizers/ubsan_unsigned_overflow_blacklist.txt
+--- a/build/sanitizers/ubsan_unsigned_overflow_blacklist.txt
++++ b/build/sanitizers/ubsan_unsigned_overflow_blacklist.txt
+@@ -2,17 +2,17 @@
+ # frequent *un*signed integer overflows in our codebase, found by the use of
+ # -fsanitize=unsigned-integer-overflow.  Such overflows are not necessarily
+ # bugs -- unsigned integer overflow has well-defined semantics in C/C++.  But
+ # overflow may still be *unexpected* and incorrectly handled, so we try to
+ # annotate those places where unsigned overflow is correct and desired.
+ #
+ # The rules in this file are applied at compile time; changes to this list
+ # usually require a full rebuild to apply. If you can modify the source in
+-# question to exempt individual functions using MOZ_NO_SANITIZE_UINT_OVERFLOW,
++# question to exempt specific functions using MOZ_NO_SANITIZE_UNSIGNED_OVERFLOW,
+ # do that instead.
+ #
+ # The extensive number of entries below is for two reasons.
+ #
+ # First, compiler instrumentation for unsigned integer overflows has a cost, at
+ # compile time and at runtime.  In places where code expects and depends upon
+ # overflow behavior -- and especially in performance-critical code -- it makes
+ # sense to turn off overflow detection to avoid both costs.  (Indeed,