Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "fasn".
Did you mean:
fan
2011 Dec 28
2
[LLVMdev] load widening conflicts with AddressSanitizer
...isable load widening you need to pass some flag to the load widening phase.
Passing it through metadata is one of the possible solutions.
Or we can disable load widening from the clang driver, but then we will need a flag for that (do we have it now?)
If you have modified the clang driver with a -fasn option, then you could also modify the driver so that it does not run the load-widening pass when the -fasn option is given on the command-line.
This assumes, of course, that the load-widening transform is not part of some other transform (like instcombine). If it is part of another transform, it...
2012 Jan 24
0
[LLVMdev] load widening conflicts with AddressSanitizer
...ss some flag to the load widening
> phase.
> Passing it through metadata is one of the possible solutions.
>
> Or we can disable load widening from the clang driver, but then we will
> need a flag for that (do we have it now?)
>
> If you have modified the clang driver with a -fasn option, then you
> could also modify the driver so that it does not run the load-widening pass
> when the -fasn option is given on the command-line.
>
> This assumes, of course, that the load-widening transform is not part of
> some other transform (like instcombine). If it is part...
2011 Dec 28
0
[LLVMdev] load widening conflicts with AddressSanitizer
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Criswell, John T <criswell at illinois.edu>wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I think adding metadata and expecting transforms to repect it is a bad
> idea. It is just too easy for someone who does not know about the metadata
> to add a transform that ignores it.
>
> As for SAFECode, I think we have one of several options for handling
>
2011 Dec 28
2
[LLVMdev] load widening conflicts with AddressSanitizer
Dear All,
I think adding metadata and expecting transforms to repect it is a bad idea. It is just too easy for someone who does not know about the metadata to add a transform that ignores it.
As for SAFECode, I think we have one of several options for handling load-widening. The most obvious one is to have a pass that just boosts the allocation size of any alloca with an align 16 attribute;
2012 Jan 24
4
[LLVMdev] load widening conflicts with AddressSanitizer
...lag to the load widening phase.
> Passing it through metadata is one of the possible solutions.
>
> Or we can disable load widening from the clang driver, but then we will need
> a flag for that (do we have it now?)
>
> If you have modified the clang driver with a -fasn option, then you could
> also modify the driver so that it does not run the load-widening pass when
> the -fasn option is given on the command-line.
>
> This assumes, of course, that the load-widening transform is not part of
> some other transform (like instcombine)....