erichkeane added a comment.
I haven't looked at the tests because I don't terribly understand the sanitizer
IR (hopefully someone else can take a look), but the logic/motivation seems
solid to me.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CGExprScalar.cpp:2422
} else if (type->isIntegerType()) {
- // Note that signed integer inc/dec with width less than int can't
- // overflow because of promotion rules; we're just eliding a few steps
here.
- if (E->canOverflow() && type->isSignedIntegerOrEnumerationType()) {
+ if (CGF.SanOpts.hasOneOf(SanitizerKind::ImplicitIntegerTruncation) &&
+ type->isPromotableIntegerType()) {
----------------
Should this be 'has' instead of 'hasOneOf'?
================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CGExprScalar.cpp:2428
+ // promotion rules, so we omit promotion+demotion, which means that we
can
+ // not catch lossy "demotion". Since we still want to catch those cases,
+ // if the sanitizer is enabled, let's perform the promotion, perform
----------------
comma at the end here isn't required. The one after 'enabled' needs to be a
semicolon I think?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D70539/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D70539
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
