search for: fatpoint

Hi everyone, After spending 2 months on LLVM generally speaking and more specifically on security passes (ASan, SAFECode, BoundsChecking) I wanted to know if there were an available implementation of strictly fat-pointer based approach to enforce bounds? If not, I wanted to implement one. I think it is interessant to have such a tool available even if there are better designs (SoftBound does

...ll need to break LLVM level ABI. This is however already implemented, because LTO between modules with invariant.group.barriers and without is also invalid. This also means that if we don’t want to break ABI between modules with and without optimizations, we will need to have invariant.barriers and fatpointer.create/strip turned on all the time. For the users it will means that when switching to new compiler, they will have to recompile all of the generated object files for LTO builds. > > Is there really no way to have this degrade more gracefully? I continue to be very concerned about front...

...s is however already >> implemented, because LTO between modules with invariant.group.barriers and >> without is also invalid. This also means that if we don’t want to break ABI >> between modules with and without optimizations, we will need to have >> invariant.barriers and fatpointer.create/strip turned on all the time. For >> the users it will means that when switching to new compiler, they will have >> to recompile all of the generated object files for LTO builds.* >> >> >> Is there really no way to have this degrade more gracefully? I contin...

...M level ABI. This is however already > implemented, because LTO between modules with invariant.group.barriers and > without is also invalid. This also means that if we don’t want to break ABI > between modules with and without optimizations, we will need to have > invariant.barriers and fatpointer.create/strip turned on all the time. For > the users it will means that when switching to new compiler, they will have > to recompile all of the generated object files for LTO builds.* > > > Is there really no way to have this degrade more gracefully? I continue > to be very c...

...ll need to break LLVM level ABI. This is however already implemented, because LTO between modules with invariant.group.barriers and without is also invalid. This also means that if we don’t want to break ABI between modules with and without optimizations, we will need to have invariant.barriers and fatpointer.create/strip turned on all the time. For the users it will means that when switching to new compiler, they will have to recompile all of the generated object files for LTO builds. Is there really no way to have this degrade more gracefully? I continue to be very concerned about frontend interw...

...ll need to break LLVM level ABI. This is however already implemented, because LTO between modules with invariant.group.barriers and without is also invalid. This also means that if we don’t want to break ABI between modules with and without optimizations, we will need to have invariant.barriers and fatpointer.create/strip turned on all the time. For the users it will means that when switching to new compiler, they will have to recompile all of the generated object files for LTO builds. >> >> Is there really no way to have this degrade more gracefully? I continue to be very concerned abo...

...ll need to break LLVM level ABI. This is however already implemented, because LTO between modules with invariant.group.barriers and without is also invalid. This also means that if we don’t want to break ABI between modules with and without optimizations, we will need to have invariant.barriers and fatpointer.create/strip turned on all the time. For the users it will means that when switching to new compiler, they will have to recompile all of the generated object files for LTO builds.ClangClang will require a couple of minor changes in CodeGen for constructors and destructors.AcknowledgmentSpecial...