[llvm-branch-commits] [llvm] [BOLT] Gadget scanner: improve handling of unreachable basic blocks (PR #136183)

jacobbramley wrote: Just a thought: if BOLT has an incomplete CFG such that there are apparently-unreachable basic blocks, then either there's some genuine dead code, or some control flow that BOLT doesn't understand. If the basic block begins with `BTI j` (or an implicit alternative) then a c

[llvm-branch-commits] [llvm] [BOLT] Gadget scanner: Detect address materialization and arithmetics (PR #132540)

@@ -0,0 +1,228 @@ +// RUN: %clang %cflags -march=armv8.3-a %s -o %t.exe +// RUN: llvm-bolt-binary-analysis --scanners=pauth %t.exe 2>&1 | FileCheck %s + +// Test various patterns that should or should not be considered safe +// materialization of PC-relative addresses. +// +// Not

[llvm-branch-commits] [llvm] [BOLT] Gadget scanner: Detect address materialization and arithmetics (PR #132540)

@@ -0,0 +1,228 @@ +// RUN: %clang %cflags -march=armv8.3-a %s -o %t.exe +// RUN: llvm-bolt-binary-analysis --scanners=pauth %t.exe 2>&1 | FileCheck %s + +// Test various patterns that should or should not be considered safe +// materialization of PC-relative addresses. +// +// Not

[llvm-branch-commits] [llvm] [BOLT] Gadget scanner: Detect address materialization and arithmetics (PR #132540)

@@ -0,0 +1,228 @@ +// RUN: %clang %cflags -march=armv8.3-a %s -o %t.exe +// RUN: llvm-bolt-binary-analysis --scanners=pauth %t.exe 2>&1 | FileCheck %s + +// Test various patterns that should or should not be considered safe +// materialization of PC-relative addresses. +// +// Not