hfinkel added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D32199#731332, @rsmith wrote:
> > ! In https://reviews.llvm.org/D32199#731252, @hfinkel wrote: > > > >> How about renaming this to something more like `-fsanitize=type`? > > > > I'm fine with that. Do you like TypeSanitizer or TypeAccessSantizer or > > TypeAliasingSanitizer best? > > I think calling it a type aliasing sanitizer would somewhat conflate the > details of the mechanism with the fundamentals of the check itself. For > example: > > variant<int, float> v; > int &n = v.get<int>; > v = 1.3f; > int m = n; > > > ... is a lifetime bug, not an aliasing bug, but would be caught by this check > just the same. Good point. > I'd be tempted to suggest EffectiveTypeSanitizer, since we seem to be > more-or-less directly implementing C's effective type rules, except that name > isn't so good for the C++ case. And in the longer term we will probably want > to provide an option to enforce the real C++ lifetime rules whereby a store > with certain !tbaa metadata is not sufficient to change the type of storage. As I've currently implemented it, both reads and writes set the type of previously-unknown storage, and after that it says fixed (unless you memcpy to it, memset it, or its lifetime ends (the type gets reset on lifetime.start/end and for malloc/allocas/etc.). There's a flag to enable the "writes always set the type" rule, but that's not the default. Is this too strict? > > >> One potential concern with calling it the type sanitizer is that we have an >> abbreviation overlap with the thread sanitizer. > > Perhaps we could abbreviate it as "tysan"? *shrug* SGTM. https://reviews.llvm.org/D32199 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
