Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "e0f11222".
Did you mean:
20111222
2011 Dec 16
0
[LLVMdev] load widening conflicts with AddressSanitizer
...___
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20111216/e0f11222/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?