russell.gallop added a comment. In D86694#2242559 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D86694#2242559>, @cryptoad wrote:
> 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. Compiling clang and lld with Scudo and ThinLTO linking clang seems to work. > 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. Thanks. I'm looking at porting the standalone variant, drawing on D42519 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D42519> and Windows support from sanitizer_common. Does that sound like a reasonable approach? > Also depending on what you want to compare, disabling the Quarantine and > other optional security features will make things faster and use less memory. Would these be good flags to use: set SCUDO_OPTIONS=allocator_release_to_os_interval_ms=-1:QuarantineSizeKb=0:ThreadLocalQuarantineSizeKb=0:DeleteSizeMismatch=0:DeallocationTypeMismatch=0 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
