> > OK, revised patch attached. I have manually verified that it yields the
> > expected result for an array of long doubles on 64-bit SPARC.
> >
> >
> > 2019-02-12 Eric Botcazou
> >
> > * asan.c (asan_expand_mark_ifn): Take into account the alignment of
> > the object to pick the
On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 12:41:47PM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > Ok, stand corrected on that, 128-bit indeed, but even that is nothing not
> > really used.
>
> The irony is that I'm doing this for 32-bit SPARC (we cannot get ASAN to work
> in 64-bit mode for the time being) and the maximum
> Ok, stand corrected on that, 128-bit indeed, but even that is nothing not
> really used.
The irony is that I'm doing this for 32-bit SPARC (we cannot get ASAN to work
in 64-bit mode for the time being) and the maximum alignment on 32-bit SPARC
is 64-bit (even long doubles) so this will be
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 01:31:24PM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > No. 64-bit aligned offsets too. If you know 64-bit alignment of base_addr,
> > you can use size 2 stores (though not size 4 stores) on the
> > !STRICT_ALIGNMENT targets. And that is something still pretty common.
>
> But we're
> No. 64-bit aligned offsets too. If you know 64-bit alignment of base_addr,
> you can use size 2 stores (though not size 4 stores) on the
> !STRICT_ALIGNMENT targets. And that is something still pretty common.
But we're talking about STRICT_ALIGNMENT targets here: an array of 2 doubles
at
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 12:31:43PM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > So, wouldn't it be better to check for STRICT_ALIGNMENT
> > get_pointer_alignment (base_addr) and do this only if that alignment
> > (shifted right by ASAN_SHADOW_SHIFT) is not sufficient and e.g. if we would
> > know that the
> So, wouldn't it be better to check for STRICT_ALIGNMENT
> get_pointer_alignment (base_addr) and do this only if that alignment
> (shifted right by ASAN_SHADOW_SHIFT) is not sufficient and e.g. if we would
> know that the shadow is at least 2 byte aligned but not 4 byte aligned, use
> size = 2
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:03:41AM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> asan_expand_mark_ifn does manual store merging but doesn't take into account
> the alignment, so this can break on strict-alignment platforms.
>
> Tested on SPARC/Solaris 11, where this fixes this regression:
>
> FAIL:
Hi,
asan_expand_mark_ifn does manual store merging but doesn't take into account
the alignment, so this can break on strict-alignment platforms.
Tested on SPARC/Solaris 11, where this fixes this regression:
FAIL: gcc.dg/asan/use-after-scope-5.c -O0 output pattern test
FAIL:
