On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 2:21 AM, Nick Lewycky <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 22 October 2013 22:07, Nick Lewycky <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 22 October 2013 21:18, Nick Lewycky <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> The attached patch makes ubsan emit summaries of errors it encounters. >>> The format of these summaries is: >>> UndefinedBehaviourSanitizer: signed-integer-overflow file:49:7 >>> where the string is the flag name. Most of the patch is adding the flag >>> names to all the reports all over. >>> >> >> I've noticed a small bug, for load-invalid-value we always pick "enum" >> and never "bool". I would guess that's because >> ASTContext::getTypeSize(BoolTy) returns 8 instead of 1? >> >> Richard, thoughts? >> > > Updated patch attached. It now detects bool sanitizer by looking at the > Type as a string, and is otherwise updated for the changes in > sanitizer-common. > This does the wrong thing for typedefs of bool. Can we emit a flag as part of the static info to say whether this was the bool sanitizer or the enum sanitizer? Otherwise, I don't see how we can distinguish the typedef-for-bool case from the enum-with-underlying-type-bool case. > Nick > > >> >> Nick >> >> This patch is stacked on top of >>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20131021/091535.html >>> , >>> or else ubsan's tests will fail. >>> >>> Please review! >>> >>> Nick >>> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
