Hi all, We are running a few experiments to try to predict the performance slowdown of Address Sanitizer. Our hypothesis is that an executable with more memory accesses would take longer than one with fewer. We tried to correlate the number of loads/stores in the LLVM IR with the slowdown introduced by ASAN but the correlation we've found is too weak to support our hypothesis.
I am attaching a chart showing the correlation we've computed. We've used the following notation: time_ratio = (time without asan) / (time with asan) stores_visible = stores_instructions_IR / stores_total loads_visible = loads_instructions_IR / loads_total However, the hypothesis still makes sense for us. Therefore, we think we might be missing a few factors. So, if we would like to predict the ASAN performance overhead on a program, which instructions, other than loads/stores, are more likely to cause Address Sanitizer to slowdown the program? Regards, Guilherme -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "address-sanitizer" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
