[PATCH] D12763: [PATCH] [compiler-rt] [sanitizers] Add VMA size check at runtime

[Kristof Beyls via llvm-commits]

kristof.beyls added a subscriber: kristof.beyls.
kristof.beyls added a comment.

I would have assumed it would be relatively straightforward to support multiple virtual-memory address space sizes in a single compiler-rt library, by adding name mangling to the public functions in the library that need to behave differently for different VMA sizes. E.g. couldn't a name mangling scheme adding "_vma39/_vma42/_vma48" be used to get all the functions depending on VMA size into a single compiler-rt library?
Building different compiler-rt libraries just for this difference seems inconvenient to users to me. Furthermore, if for some reason another difference requires slightly different implementations in the sanitizers or in other functionality in compiler-rt, are we going to build the cartesian cross-product of all variants?

I haven't looked into the details of how the sanitizers are implemented, but I'm assuming there's a very good reason why the shadow regions need to be placed in an area depending on the VMA size?


http://reviews.llvm.org/D12763