[PATCH] D115844: [ubsan] Using metadata instead of prologue data for function sanitizer

vitalybuka added a comment. In D115844#3625781 , @ychen wrote: > In D115844#3625776 , @vitalybuka > wrote: > >> @ychen This patch causes 20% .o size increase (x86_64) Is this expected? > > No, it is not

[PATCH] D115844: [ubsan] Using metadata instead of prologue data for function sanitizer

ychen added a comment. In D115844#3625776 , @vitalybuka wrote: > @ychen This patch causes 20% .o size increase (x86_64) Is this expected? No, it is not expected. Do you have a test case? I'll take a look. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo

[PATCH] D115844: [ubsan] Using metadata instead of prologue data for function sanitizer

vitalybuka added a comment. @ychen This patch causes 20% .o size increase (x86_64) Is this expected? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D115844/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D115844 ___

[PATCH] D115844: [ubsan] Using metadata instead of prologue data for function sanitizer

This revision was landed with ongoing or failed builds. This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rG6678f8e505b1: [ubsan] Using metadata instead of prologue data for function sanitizer (authored by ychen). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo

[PATCH] D115844: [ubsan] Using metadata instead of prologue data for function sanitizer

ychen updated this revision to Diff 440329. ychen marked an inline comment as done. ychen added a comment. Update LangRef. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D115844/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D115844 Files:

[PATCH] D115844: [ubsan] Using metadata instead of prologue data for function sanitizer

pcc accepted this revision. pcc added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. LGTM > Yes, but not indirectly called from C/C++ but rather from compiler-generated > code right? That's presumably why this patch + D116130 > worked for

[PATCH] D115844: [ubsan] Using metadata instead of prologue data for function sanitizer

ychen added a comment. gentle ping.. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D115844/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D115844 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org

[PATCH] D115844: [ubsan] Using metadata instead of prologue data for function sanitizer

ychen added inline comments. Herald added subscribers: jsji, Enna1. Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CodeGenModule.cpp:1843 + + auto *FTRTTIProxy = new llvm::GlobalVariable( + TheModule, Addr->getType(), pcc wrote: > ychen wrote: > > pcc wrote: > > > Are

[PATCH] D115844: [ubsan] Using metadata instead of prologue data for function sanitizer

pcc added inline comments. Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CodeGenModule.cpp:1843 + + auto *FTRTTIProxy = new llvm::GlobalVariable( + TheModule, Addr->getType(), ychen wrote: > pcc wrote: > > Are these proxy variables necessary? I think that now that we have

[PATCH] D115844: [ubsan] Using metadata instead of prologue data for function sanitizer

ychen added inline comments. Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CodeGenModule.cpp:1843 + + auto *FTRTTIProxy = new llvm::GlobalVariable( + TheModule, Addr->getType(), pcc wrote: > Are these proxy variables necessary? I think that now that we have custom > code

[PATCH] D115844: [ubsan] Using metadata instead of prologue data for function sanitizer

pcc added inline comments. Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CodeGenModule.cpp:1843 + + auto *FTRTTIProxy = new llvm::GlobalVariable( + TheModule, Addr->getType(), Are these proxy variables necessary? I think that now that we have custom code generation for

[PATCH] D115844: [ubsan] Using metadata instead of prologue data for function sanitizer

ychen added a comment. gentle ping. @pcc could we please move this forward if the direction looks good to you? It has been sitting for a while... Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D115844/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D115844

[PATCH] D115844: [ubsan] Using metadata instead of prologue data for function sanitizer

ychen added a comment. ping.. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D115844/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D115844 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org

[PATCH] D115844: [ubsan] Using metadata instead of prologue data for function sanitizer

ychen added a comment. Herald added a subscriber: MaskRay. ping ... Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D115844/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D115844 ___ cfe-commits mailing list

[PATCH] D115844: [ubsan] Using metadata instead of prologue data for function sanitizer

ychen added a comment. Herald added a project: All. gentle ping.. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D115844/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D115844 ___ cfe-commits mailing list

[PATCH] D115844: [ubsan] Using metadata instead of prologue data for function sanitizer

ychen updated this revision to Diff 408752. ychen added a comment. Herald added subscribers: jdoerfert, pengfei. - check code model in driver - document `func_sanitizer` in Langref - add a codegen test Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION

[PATCH] D115844: [ubsan] Using metadata instead of prologue data for function sanitizer

ychen added inline comments. Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CGExpr.cpp:5171 (!TargetDecl || !isa(TargetDecl))) { +assert((CGM.getCodeGenOpts().CodeModel == "default" || +CGM.getCodeGenOpts().CodeModel == "small") && pcc wrote: > What

[PATCH] D115844: [ubsan] Using metadata instead of prologue data for function sanitizer

pcc added a comment. In D115844#3321235 , @ychen wrote: > In D115844#3321190 , @pcc wrote: > >> On the bug you have: >> >> define internal fastcc void >> @_Z4callIiE4taskv.resume(%_Z4callIiE4taskv.Frame*

[PATCH] D115844: [ubsan] Using metadata instead of prologue data for function sanitizer

ychen added a comment. In D115844#3321190 , @pcc wrote: > On the bug you have: > > define internal fastcc void > @_Z4callIiE4taskv.resume(%_Z4callIiE4taskv.Frame* noalias nonnull > align 8 dereferenceable(24 > ) %FramePtr) #1 prologue <{ i32,

[PATCH] D115844: [ubsan] Using metadata instead of prologue data for function sanitizer

pcc added a comment. On the bug you have: define internal fastcc void @_Z4callIiE4taskv.resume(%_Z4callIiE4taskv.Frame* noalias nonnull align 8 dereferenceable(24 ) %FramePtr) #1 prologue <{ i32, i32 }> <{ i32 846595819, i32 trunc (i64 sub (i64 ptrtoint (i8** @1 to i64), i64 ptrtoint

[PATCH] D115844: [ubsan] Using metadata instead of prologue data for function sanitizer

ychen added a comment. gentle ping.. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D115844/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D115844 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org

[PATCH] D115844: [ubsan] Using metadata instead of prologue data for function sanitizer

zhuhan0 added a comment. I verified this patch together with https://reviews.llvm.org/D116130 fix the issue https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/49689. I'm not an expert in this area. Could someone review this patch so we can move forward with the fix? Repository: rG LLVM Github

[PATCH] D115844: [ubsan] Using metadata instead of prologue data for function sanitizer

ychen added a comment. Hi @pcc, does this make sense to you? Thanks. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D115844/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D115844 ___ cfe-commits mailing list

[PATCH] D115844: [ubsan] Using metadata instead of prologue data for function sanitizer

ychen created this revision. ychen added reviewers: pcc, vsk, rjmccall. Herald added subscribers: dexonsmith, hiraditya. ychen requested review of this revision. Herald added projects: clang, LLVM. Herald added subscribers: llvm-commits, cfe-commits. Information in the function `Prologue Data` is