aeubanks added inline comments.
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Passes/PassRegistry.def:92
MODULE_PASS("verify", VerifierPass())
+MODULE_PASS("dfsan", DataFlowSanitizerPass())
MODULE_PASS("asan-module", ModuleAddressSanitizerPass(/*CompileKernel=*/false,
false, true, false))
----------------
morehouse wrote:
> Nit: maybe "dfsan-module" for consistency?
Almost all of the others have both a module and function pass, so the "-module"
is to distinguish between those. I think sancov-module is the only one that
doesn't fit that, and I actually did want to rename it to sancov.
I'd like to keep the name the same as the legacy pass for migration reasons
(basically so I don't have to touch every dfsan test).
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Transforms/Instrumentation/DataFlowSanitizer.cpp:778
+bool DataFlowSanitizer::runImpl(Module &M) {
+ init(M);
+
----------------
morehouse wrote:
> Do we need a bool to avoid calling `init` more than once?
A new `DataFlowSanitizer` is constructed for each `run`/`runOnModule` so that
shouldn't be necessary.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D84707/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D84707
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
