cryptoad added a comment. In D86694#2242150 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D86694#2242150>, @russell.gallop wrote:
> In D86694#2242140 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D86694#2242140>, @cryptoad wrote: > >> That's awesome! Is it meant to eventually be committed or only be used for >> comparison purposes? > > I'd like it to be committed, but can't claim I know the code from > https://reviews.llvm.org/D42519 well enough. The good news is that I can > build LLVM on Windows with this. Is there a good sanity check that it is > actually using Scudo rather than silently using the standard alloc? Nothing except the tests. Compiling a sizeable application with Scudo as well. > You marked D42519 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D42519> as WIP, can you remember > what was still TBD? Mostly because I didn't have the time and resources to make sure this would work over the long term. I used my home windows box to do this as a proof of concept that it could be done. > Also, it might make sense to separate out the "use" of sanitize=Scudo in > LLVM, from providing Windows support. I put them together here for evaluation > purposes. Yeah this makes sense. The other point that is worth mentioning is that we moved all dev efforts to the "standalone" version of Scudo (eg: the one not depending on sanitizer_common in the standalone/ subdirectory). There is enough differences that there could be some significant performance/mem footprint changes between the 2. Also depending on what you want to compare, disabling the Quarantine and other optional security features will make things faster and use less memory. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D86694/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D86694 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
