vitalybuka wrote: > > > why can't hwasan and PGO instrumentation coexist? > > > > > > They can, but binary is like 5x times slower, on top of 10x slowdown of PGO > > instrumentation. (don't quote me on these numbers, they are from large but > > single benchmark, still it's very slow) > > If it's usable as a configuration, I don't see why we should prevent this. It > still may be useful to some people. Seems like this checking should be done > at a build system level if you don't want some codebase to compile with this > configuration. >
At the moment builds system can only disable HWASAN, there is no option to enabled HWASAN but drop the pass. > > > and this seems like it should be an error at the clang driver level, > > > instead of silently turning off one of the requested features > > > > > > > > 1. We need -fsanitizer=hwaddress, for attributes and profile matching, and > > some special handling done in earlier passes. > > Do you mean that if you want a hwasan/PGO optimized build, you want the > corresponding PGO instrumented build to also use hwasan? I want PGO optimized binary with HWASAN. But I don't rely want collect PGO profile with HWASAN, because the process is very slow. > > Doesn't PGO instrumentation/use happen before the sanitizer passes run? Instrumentation/use happens before sanitizer pass. This is why drooping the pass will still produce the same optimized binary. > > > 2. We don't wan't users care about profile instrumentation/use difference. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/86739 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
