[llvm] [PAC][IR][AArch64] Add "ptrauth(...)" Constant to represent signed pointers. (PR #85738)
Daniil Kovalev via llvm-commits
llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
Sun Jun 16 22:21:59 PDT 2024
================
@@ -1008,6 +1008,72 @@ struct OperandTraits<NoCFIValue> : public FixedNumOperandTraits<NoCFIValue, 1> {
DEFINE_TRANSPARENT_OPERAND_ACCESSORS(NoCFIValue, Value)
+/// A signed pointer, in the ptrauth sense.
+class ConstantPtrAuth final : public Constant {
+ friend struct ConstantPtrAuthKeyType;
+ friend class Constant;
+
+ ConstantPtrAuth(Constant *Ptr, ConstantInt *Key, ConstantInt *Disc,
+ Constant *AddrDisc);
+
+ void *operator new(size_t s) { return User::operator new(s, 4); }
+
+ void destroyConstantImpl();
+ Value *handleOperandChangeImpl(Value *From, Value *To);
+
+public:
+ /// Return a pointer signed with the specified parameters.
+ static ConstantPtrAuth *get(Constant *Ptr, ConstantInt *Key,
+ ConstantInt *Disc, Constant *AddrDisc);
+
+ /// Produce a new ptrauth expression signing the given value using
+ /// the same schema as is stored in one.
+ ConstantPtrAuth *getWithSameSchema(Constant *Pointer) const;
+
+ /// Transparently provide more efficient getOperand methods.
+ DECLARE_TRANSPARENT_OPERAND_ACCESSORS(Constant);
+
+ /// The pointer that is signed in this ptrauth signed pointer.
+ Constant *getPointer() const { return cast<Constant>(Op<0>().get()); }
----------------
kovdan01 wrote:
@ahmedbougacha Is it a desired behavior that we return a non-const-qualified pointer to associated data when calling getters allowed for calls on const-qualified object? Shouldn't we have two getter overloads, one with `const` for implicit `this` parameter and one without that?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/85738
More information about the llvm-commits
mailing list