aeubanks wrote: > > why can't hwasan and PGO instrumentation coexist? > > They can, but binary is like 5x times slower, on top of 10x slowdown of PGO > instrumentation. (don't quote me on these numbers, they are from large but > single benchmark, still it's very slow) > If it's usable as a configuration, I don't see why we should prevent this. It still may be useful to some people. Seems like this checking should be done at a build system level if you don't want some codebase to compile with this configuration. > > and this seems like it should be an error at the clang driver level, > > instead of silently turning off one of the requested features > > 1. We need -fsanitizer=hwaddress, for attributes and profile matching, and > some special handling done in earlier passes.
Do you mean that if you want a hwasan/PGO optimized build, you want the corresponding PGO instrumented build to also use hwasan? Doesn't PGO instrumentation/use happen before the sanitizer passes run? > 2. We don't wan't users care about profile instrumentation/use difference. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86739 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
