Hi Joey, On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Joey Gouly <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Alexey, > > I've attached just the changes to darwin-sanitizer-ld.c, look good? > Yeah, that's fine. You can leave a single "// CHECK-DYN-BOUNDS-NOT: libclang_rt.ubsan_osx.a" (w/o undefined dynamic_lookup) in the last test case. -fsanitize=bounds looks good to me as well, but you should probably wait for approval from Richard or Nuno. Thanks! > > Thanks, > Joey > > From: Alexey Samsonov [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 22 November 2012 12:08 > To: Joey Gouly > Cc: Richard Smith; Nuno Lopes; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [cfe-commits] [PATCH] PR14306: Move -fbounds-checking > to-fsanitize=bounds > > Hi Joey, > On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Joey Gouly <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Richard & Nuno, > > > > 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. > I was planning on looking into using ubsan for diagnostics after this > initial patch. > I updated the patch to not link with the ubsan-rt if -fsanitize=bounds is > passed. > > Sounds good. Can you please also test this behavior in > test/Driver/darwin-sanitizer-ld.c? > > Ok to commit? > > > 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. > There is a patch to remove the penalty arg, it has been approved for > committing, > but I'm waiting for the Clang patch to land before I commit it. I have also > started to look into adding a new parameter to select between traps and > runtime calls. > > Thanks, > Joey > > > 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 > > > > > -- > Alexey Samsonov, MSK > -- Alexey Samsonov, MSK
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
