[PATCH] Use ARM-style representation for C++ method pointers under PNaCl

[John McCall]

On Jun 19, 2013, at 3:17 PM, Mark Seaborn <mseaborn at chromium.org> wrote:
> On 19 June 2013 13:17, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2013, at 1:05 PM, Mark Seaborn <mseaborn at chromium.org> wrote:
>> On 19 June 2013 13:01, Mark Seaborn <mseaborn at chromium.org> wrote:
>> Use ARM-style representation for C++ method pointers under PNaCl
>> 
>> Before this change, Clang uses the x86 representation for C++ method
>> pointers when generating code for PNaCl.  However, the resulting code
>> will assume that function pointers are 0 mod 2.  This assumption is
>> not safe for PNaCl, where function pointers could have any value
>> (especially in future sandboxing models).
>> 
>> So, switch to using the ARM representation for PNaCl code, which makes
>> no assumptions about the alignment of function pointers.
>> 
>> See: https://code.google.com/p/nativeclient/issues/detail?id=3450
>> 
>> Oops, I meant to send this to cfe-commits rather than llvm-commits.
> 
> I do not think you should just unconditionally opt in to random ARM
> behavior.  In particular, ARM uses 32-bit guard variables because that's
> the size of a pointer on ARM;  PNaCl needs to be able to efficiently
> support 64-bit platforms as well.
> 
> The code does always use 64-bit guard variables on 64-bit systems.  It does this:
> 
>     // Guard variables are 64 bits in the generic ABI and size width on ARM
>     // (i.e. 32-bit on AArch32, 64-bit on AArch64).
>     guardTy = (IsARM ? CGF.SizeTy : CGF.Int64Ty);
> 
> Having said that, PNaCl is 32-bit-only:  PNaCl programs assume a 32-bit address space.  We don't support 64-bit pointers in PNaCl.  In Clang, targeting PNaCl is identified by "le32" being in the triple, and I assume there's no way to get 64-bit pointers with "le32". :-)

Interesting, okay.

I still do not want PNaCl to claim to be ARM.  Abstract the code so that
you can opt into the specific behaviors you want without pretending to
be ARM.

John.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20130619/038be1c3/attachment.html>