vsk added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/docs/UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer.rst:177
``-fsanitize=undefined``.
+ - ``-fsanitize=pointer-offsetting``: Enables ``nullptr-and-nonzero-offset``
+ and ``pointer-overflow``.
----------------
Why does this need to be a separate sanitizer, as opposed to being a part of
-fsanitize=pointer-overflow? Is there a need for a new group?
================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CGExprScalar.cpp:4544
- // If the GEP has already been reduced to a constant, leave it be.
- if (isa<llvm::Constant>(GEPVal))
- return GEPVal;
-
- // Only check for overflows in the default address space.
- if (GEPVal->getType()->getPointerAddressSpace())
- return GEPVal;
+ // Was the GEP has already been reduced to a constant?
+ if (isa<llvm::Constant>(GEPVal)) {
----------------
`s/has//`, `s/been//`
================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CodeGenFunction.h:4072
+ std::pair<llvm::Value * /*TotalOffset*/, llvm::Value * /*OffsetOverflows*/>
+ EmitGEPOffsetInBytes(llvm::Value *BasePtr, llvm::Value *GEPVal);
+
----------------
Why does this need to be a method in CodeGenFunction? This seems too tied to
the work done in EmitCheckedInBoundsGEP to warrant inclusion here.
================
Comment at: compiler-rt/lib/ubsan/ubsan_handlers.cpp:715
+ "applying non-zero offset to non-null pointer %0 producing null "
+ "pointer is undefined behaviour")
+ << (void *)Base;
----------------
I don't think these diagnostics generally need to repeat the fact that there is
UB: that seems implicit.
How about: 'non-zero offset %0 applied to null pointer', and 'non-zero offset
%0 applied to non-null pointer %1 produced null'?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D67122/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D67122
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
