vitalybuka added a comment.
Other than missing llvm test is LGTM
================
Comment at: clang/test/CodeGen/hwasan-stack-safety-analysis-asm.c:4
+
+int main(int argc, char **argv) {
+ char buf[10];
----------------
fmayer wrote:
> vitalybuka wrote:
> > this patch mostly change code under llvm/ so tests should be also there, as
> > IR tests
> >
> >
> I don't have strong feelings, but clang/test/CodeGen/lifetime-sanitizer.c is
> a very similar test, so I think we should either move all of these to llvm/
> or add the new ones here to clang/. What do you think?
That lifetime tests how clang inserts lifetime markers. So it must be in clang/
this is from https://reviews.llvm.org/D20759 which is clang only patch.
Here the only change for clang is forwarded BuilderWrapper.getTargetTriple().
I don't mind if you keep your tests here, but we also need something which
tests llvm without clang as you change llvm tranformation.
Usually if contributor changes code in llvm/, expectation is that check-llvm
should discover regression. It's not always possible, but that's the goal and
easy to do with this patch.
================
Comment at: llvm/include/llvm/Transforms/Instrumentation/HWAddressSanitizer.h:40
+ Triple TargetTriple;
+ bool IsOptNull;
};
----------------
!IsOptNull -> Optimize
or
IsOptNull -> DisableOptimization
================
Comment at: llvm/include/llvm/Transforms/Instrumentation/HWAddressSanitizer.h:32
+ Triple TargetTriple = {});
PreservedAnalyses run(Module &M, ModuleAnalysisManager &MAM);
static bool isRequired() { return true; }
----------------
fmayer wrote:
> vitalybuka wrote:
> > Why not from M.getTargetTriple() ?
> Mostly for consistency with the legacy pass. Either way is fine for me
> though, what do you prefer?
I don't know if will cause any issues, but usually most passes get triple from
the module.
I prefer we stay consistent with the rest of the code if possible.
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Transforms/Instrumentation/HWAddressSanitizer.cpp:444
+ const StackSafetyGlobalInfo *SSI = nullptr;
+ if (shouldUseStackSafetyAnalysis(TargetTriple, IsOptNull)) {
+ SSI = &MAM.getResult<StackSafetyGlobalAnalysis>(M);
----------------
we usually don't use {} for single line
also maybe good candidate for ?: operator
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Transforms/Instrumentation/HWAddressSanitizer.cpp:390
+ void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const override {
+ if (shouldUseStackSafetyAnalysis(TargetTriple)) {
+ AU.addRequired<StackSafetyGlobalInfoWrapperPass>();
----------------
fmayer wrote:
> vitalybuka wrote:
> > why we need to check TargetTriple for that?
> Because we only need the stack safety analysis if we instrument the stack,
> which we do not do on x86_64 (see shouldInstrumentStack).
I see, I forgot about this limitation.
LGTM, but unconditional is fine as well, assuming we are going to have stack
instrumentation at some point?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D105703/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D105703
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
