| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
-fsanitize=shift-exponent.
This is a recommit of r231150, reverted in r231409. Turns out
that -fsanitize=shift-base check implementation only works if the
shift exponent is valid, otherwise it contains undefined behavior
itself.
Make sure we check that exponent is valid before we proceed to
check the base. Make sure that we actually report invalid values
of base or exponent if -fsanitize=shift-base or
-fsanitize=shift-exponent is specified, respectively.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk@231711 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
-fsanitize=shift-exponent."
It's not that easy. If we're only checking -fsanitize=shift-base we
still need to verify that exponent has sane value, otherwise
UBSan-inserted checks for base will contain undefined behavior
themselves.
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk@231409 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
-fsanitize=shift-exponent.
-fsanitize=shift is now a group that includes both these checks, so
exisiting users should not be affected.
This change introduces two new UBSan kinds that sanitize only left-hand
side and right-hand side of shift operation. In practice, invalid
exponent value (negative or too large) tends to cause more portability
problems, including inconsistencies between different compilers, crashes
and inadequeate results on non-x86 architectures etc. That is,
-fsanitize=shift-exponent failures should generally be addressed first.
As a bonus, this change simplifies CodeGen implementation for emitting left
shift (separate checks for base and exponent are now merged by the
existing generic logic in EmitCheck()), and LLVM IR for these checks
(the number of basic blocks is reduced).
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk@231150 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
|
|
|
whether we can safely lower a conditional operator to select was insufficient.
I've left a large comment in place to explaining the sort of problems that this
transform can encounter in clang in the hopes of discouraging others from
reimplementing it wrongly again in the future. (The test should also help with
that, but it's easy to work around any single test I might add and think that
your particular implementation doesn't miscompile any code.)
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk@194289 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
|
