[llvm-dev] Policy for compiler-rt ABI stability and external dependencies?
Kostya Serebryany via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Oct 11 09:30:58 PDT 2017
The sanitizers don't use any of the C++ std library.
More than that, they don't include *any* system headers in most of the
sources (exception is some OS-dependent .cc files).
This rule is *somewhat* documented, e.g.
// - No system headers included in header files (*).
// - Platform specific headres included only into platform-specific files
It's enforced only by code review, although if one attempts to use stl in
e.g. asan some tests will most likely break.
If you can suggest a simple way to enforce this at build time -- let's do
libFuzzer on the contrary uses STL, including the containers, and it causes
all sorts of problems.
(I've anticipated it from the beginning, but just couldn't force myself to
not use STL).
My recommendation is to ban all of C++ std lib in xray unless you find a
way to "privatize" the bits of STL you are using.
Ideally, those bits will be header-only and you'll be able to change the
namespace for STL.
See e.g. a long discussion in https://reviews.llvm.org/D37631 (trying to
privatize STL in libFuzzer)
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 4:07 AM, Dean Michael Berris <dean.berris at gmail.com>
> Hi Kostya, Evgenii, and David,
> Recently I've been making some incremental changes to the XRay runtime
> implementation in compiler-rt to reduce the reliance on the C++ standard
> library components that might have external linkage dependencies. This
> involves not using containers from the STL and not using non-trivially
> destructible C++11 thread_local objects.
> I was wondering whether the sanitisers follow an explicit policy of not
> depending on the C++ standard library or avoiding linkage/ABI issues that
> come up when building the sanitisers with C++ standard library
> dependencies. If it does, do we document these policies somewhere? If we
> don't document it somewhere, does it make sense for us to do so and maybe
> potentially enforce it at build time?
> One of the policies I can think of is not to use *anything* from the C++
> standard library even if they are templates anyway (e.g.
> std::unique_ptr<...>, std::shared_ptr<...>, std::tuple<...>,
> std::aligned_storage<...>, etc.). The downside to this would be myriad,
> where we'd need to implement analogues of these ourselves or resort to only
> things we can use from libc. I'm not sure how this could be automatically
> enforced, maybe potentially through a blacklist on `std::` types.
> A slightly more permissive policy might be to allow using some of these
> types but not in any of the exposed interfaces and not require any runtime
> dependencies from the C++ standard library. This might be possible to
> enforce by checking the external/dymamic symbols in the runtime archives.
> I'm not sure though whether it's even safe to assume that the templates
> wouldn't introduce some weird ABI constraint even if the types don't cross
> the API boundaries.
> I'm curious what the sanitisers currently do and what
> techniques/conventions we can follow on the XRay implementation that would
> be helpful to emulate as well.
> In a similar vein, how do the sanitisers handle making ABI breaking
> changes? For the published types, is there a symbol naming policy and
> explicit deprecation/support horizon? How about API stability, do we intend
> to keep the API stable across N stable releases?
We generally don't promise compatibility between the compiler and rt from
However, just in case, we do a version mismatch check (e.g. see
> Your thoughts and feedback would be most appreciated.
> -- Dean
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev