kcc added a comment.
What's the code size implications?
================
Comment at: clang/test/CodeGen/asan-use-callbacks.cpp:15
-int deref(int *p) {
+long deref(long *p) {
return *p;
----------------
As we introduce a difference in behavior for small and large accesses,
I would extend this test to have 1, 2, 4, and 16-byte accesses.
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Transforms/Instrumentation/AddressSanitizer.cpp:310
+static cl::opt<bool> ClInlineSmallCallbacks(
+ "asan-inline-small-callbacks",
+ cl::desc("Inline callbacks for 8 and 16 byte types."), cl::Hidden,
----------------
The flag semantics are weird. We first say "use callbacks", then we say "but
not for small callbacks".
Perhaps, instead, introduce a flag
asan-short-instrumentation-with-call-threshold
and when present use this flag for 8/16 instead of the
asan-instrumentation-with-call-threshold?
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Transforms/Instrumentation/AddressSanitizer.cpp:1749
+ if (ClInlineSmallCallbacks && AccessSizeIndex > 2) {
+ UseCalls = false;
----------------
perhaps move this logic to where UseCalls is computed initially?
(see my other comment too)
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Transforms/Instrumentation/AddressSanitizer.cpp:1751
+ UseCalls = false;
+ }
+
----------------
for single-statement if bodies this code base does not use {}
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D108323/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D108323
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
