Chris Lattner
2011-Dec-17 01:46 UTC
[LLVMdev] load widening conflicts with AddressSanitizer
I'm not opposed to disabling this transformation when asan is on, we just need a clean way to express this in the IR. -Chris On Dec 16, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote:> Why you don't like the idea to disable or restrict the widening when asan is on? > > --kcc
Rafael Ávila de Espíndola
2011-Dec-17 15:40 UTC
[LLVMdev] load widening conflicts with AddressSanitizer
On 16/12/11 08:46 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:> I'm not opposed to disabling this transformation when asan is on, we just need a clean way to express this in the IR.Could clang be aware of asan being on and introduce a "please don't widen" metadata on local variable accesses? Alternatively, could asan analyze the IL to see which bytes are used?> -Chris >Cheers, Rafael
Chris Lattner
2011-Dec-20 00:27 UTC
[LLVMdev] load widening conflicts with AddressSanitizer
On Dec 17, 2011, at 7:40 AM, Rafael Ávila de Espíndola wrote:> On 16/12/11 08:46 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: >> I'm not opposed to disabling this transformation when asan is on, we just need a clean way to express this in the IR. > > Could clang be aware of asan being on and introduce a "please don't > widen" metadata on local variable accesses?Yes, "we just need a clean way to express this in the IR." LLVM can't have a global "bool ASANIsOn;" that the optimizers listen to. -Chris
Seemingly Similar Threads
- [LLVMdev] load widening conflicts with AddressSanitizer
- [LLVMdev] load widening conflicts with AddressSanitizer
- [LLVMdev] load widening conflicts with AddressSanitizer
- [LLVMdev] load widening conflicts with AddressSanitizer
- [LLVMdev] load widening conflicts with AddressSanitizer