vsk planned changes to this revision.
vsk added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D38210#887635, @pcc wrote:
> Wouldn't we get false positives if there is an indirect call in C++ code that
> calls into C code (or vice versa)?
Ah, right, I'm surprised I didn't hit that while testing.
> I
pcc added a comment.
Wouldn't we get false positives if there is an indirect call in C++ code that
calls into C code (or vice versa)?
I think I'd prefer it if we came up with a precise encoding of function types
that was independent of RTTI, and use it in all languages. One possibility
would b
vsk added a reviewer: arphaman.
vsk added a comment.
Ping.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D38210
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
vsk updated this revision to Diff 116453.
vsk added a comment.
- Remove some noisy changes.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D38210
Files:
docs/UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer.rst
lib/CodeGen/CGExpr.cpp
lib/CodeGen/CodeGenFunction.cpp
lib/CodeGen/CodeGenModule.cpp
lib/CodeGen/CodeGenModule.h
tes
vsk created this revision.
The function sanitizer relies on RTTI to check callee types, but this
scheme doesn't work well in languages without the ODR.
This patch introduces a simple, best-effort function type encoding
which can be used when RTTI isn't available. In this scheme, function
types ar
