Hi! On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Nuno Lopes <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks, this was on my TODO list for a while.. > The patch looks good to me, but I'll let a clang expert pronounce the final > veredict.
LGTM > What I'm not sure is if 'bounds' should be included in the ubsan group. > While it also checks for undefined behaviour, it won't produce any nice > diagnostics like the other ubsan checkers. This bound checker just crashes > the program when it detects a violation. I agree that it would be preferable to produce a call into the ubsan runtime to produce a diagnostic for this, but I don't think that needs to block this patch. We should decide one way or the other, though, and not link in the ubsan runtime for -fsanitize=bounds if we're not going to use it. Presumably there will be a followup patch to LLVM, to remove the vestigial 'Penalty' argument; we could at that time add an argument to the createBoundsCheckingPass function to specify how to handle a failure. > FWIW, I would prefer if 'bounds' was included in the ubsan group. I'm just > raising the concern that not everyone may agree. > > Nuno > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joey Gouly" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 11:52 AM > Subject: [cfe-commits] [PATCH] PR14306: Move -fbounds-checking > to-fsanitize=bounds > > > > Hi all, > > Attached is the patch to change the -fbounds-checking flag to > -fsanitize=bounds, and also put it under the ubsan flag as well. > > Note: I removed the bounds checking penalty parameter, but that is in a > separate patch. > > Please review! > > Thanks, > Joey _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
