Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "87f110ed".
Did you mean:
87f10ee
2011 Dec 16
0
[LLVMdev] load widening conflicts with AddressSanitizer
...observe now.
--kcc
> I supposed we could add a "do not widen" metadata hint on load
> instructions or something like that.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20111216/87f110ed/attachment.html>
2011 Dec 16
4
[LLVMdev] load widening conflicts with AddressSanitizer
On Dec 16, 2011, at 12:39 PM, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
> > Do we consider the above transformation legal?
Yes, the transformation is perfectly legal for the normal compiler.
> > I would argue that it should not be legal. We don't actually know what
> > comes after the 22 byte object. Is it another memory object? A
> > memory-mapped I/O device? Unmapped memory?