On 2023-11-13 02:53, Sam James wrote:
Sam James writes:
Alexander Monakov writes:
[...]
I'm very curious what you mean by "this has come up with LLVM []
too": ttbomk,
LLVM doesn't do such lifetime-based optimization yet, which is why
compiling
LLVM with LLVM doesn't break it. Can you shar
Sam James writes:
> Alexander Monakov writes:
> [...]
>>
>> I'm very curious what you mean by "this has come up with LLVM [] too":
>> ttbomk,
>> LLVM doesn't do such lifetime-based optimization yet, which is why compiling
>> LLVM with LLVM doesn't break it. Can you share some examples? Or do
Alexander Monakov writes:
> On Sat, 11 Nov 2023, Sam James wrote:
>
>> > Valgrind client requests are offered as macros that emit inline asm. For
>> > use
>> > in code generation, we need to wrap it in a built-in. We know that
>> > implementing
>> > such a built-in in libgcc is undesirable,
On Sat, 11 Nov 2023, Sam James wrote:
> > Valgrind client requests are offered as macros that emit inline asm. For
> > use
> > in code generation, we need to wrap it in a built-in. We know that
> > implementing
> > such a built-in in libgcc is undesirable, [...].
>
> Perhaps less objectiona
exactl...@ispras.ru writes:
> From: Daniil Frolov
>
> PR 66487 is asking to provide sanitizer-like detection for C++ object lifetime
> violations that are worked around with -fno-lifetime-dse in Firefox, LLVM,
> OpenJade.
>
> The discussion in the PR was centered around extending MSan, but MSan
