hfinkel added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D32199#731144, @rsmith wrote:
>
...
> I would also expect that we will extend this in future to assign types to
> storage even in cases where there is no store (for instance, we should be
> able to catch `float f() { int n; return *(float*)&n; }` despite there being
> no TBAA violation in the naive IR).
Yes. My thought was that we'd make Clang generate tbaa metadata on allocas and
lifetime.start intrinsics (and globals) so that we can mark the memory types
upon creation. Would that catch everything?
> How about renaming this to something more like `-fsanitize=type`?
I'm fine with that. Do you like TypeSanitizer or TypeAccessSantizer or
TypeAliasingSanitizer best?
One potential concern with calling it the type sanitizer is that we have an
abbreviation overlap with the thread sanitizer.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D32199
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
