search for: address_safeti

Displaying 6 results from an estimated 6 matches for "address_safeti".

Did you mean: address_safety
2012 Jan 24
0
[LLVMdev] load widening conflicts with AddressSanitizer
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Kostya, > > > [resurrecting an old mail thread about AddressSanitizer false positive > caused by > > load widening] > > > > Once the Attribute::AddressSafety is set by clang (a separate patch), > fixing > > this bug may look as simple as this: > > Hi Duncan, >
2012 Jan 24
2
[LLVMdev] load widening conflicts with AddressSanitizer
Hi Kostya, > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr > <mailto:baldrick at free.fr>> wrote: > > Hi Kostya, > > > [resurrecting an old mail thread about AddressSanitizer false positive > caused by > > load widening] > > > > Once the Attribute::AddressSafety is set by clang (a separate
2012 Nov 16
0
[LLVMdev] Two questions about pass managers and passes
Hello All, I have two questions, one more of an implementation question, the other more a design question. First: I noticed that if one moves the FPPassManager::doInitialization(Module) call from FPPassManager::runOnModule to MPPassManager::runOnModule (which is the new location I am aiming for to avoid the need for a doInitialization/doFinalization outside of the run methods, as preferred by
2012 Nov 16
0
[LLVMdev] Two questions regarding pass managers and passes
Hello All, I have two questions, one more of an implementation question, the other more a design question. First: I noticed that if one moves the FPPassManager::doInitialization(Module) call from FPPassManager::runOnModule to MPPassManager::runOnModule (which is the new location I am aiming for to avoid the need for a doInitialization/doFinalization outside of the run methods, as preferred by
2012 Jan 24
4
[LLVMdev] load widening conflicts with AddressSanitizer
Hi Kostya, > [resurrecting an old mail thread about AddressSanitizer false positive caused by > load widening] > > Once the Attribute::AddressSafety is set by clang (a separate patch), fixing > this bug may look as simple as this: I don't get the point of an attribute. There's plenty of code out there that does wide loads like this directly (without them being created by
2012 Jan 24
0
[LLVMdev] load widening conflicts with AddressSanitizer
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Kostya, > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr >> <mailto:baldrick at free.fr>> wrote: >> >> Hi Kostya, >> >> > [resurrecting an old mail thread about AddressSanitizer false >> positive >> caused by