hctim added a comment. In D83494#2148180 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D83494#2148180>, @morehouse wrote:
> In D83494#2148164 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D83494#2148164>, @dokyungs wrote: > > > Right. Apparently with `-O2` many calls to `memcmp`-like functions are > > removed. I just wondered, though, what makes more sense: disabling such > > optimization when building (i) with sancov, or (ii) with > > `-fsanitize=fuzzer`? If we go for (i), would it make sense to do it in the > > SanitizerCoverage module pass like other sanitizers do? What do you think? > > Also, can it be addressed in a follow-up patch? > > > My opinion is to make it part of `-fsanitize=fuzzer`, or maybe disable parts > of the builtin optimization pass for functions with the `OptForFuzzing` > attribute. > > And I think a follow-up patch is easier to review. Agreed with Matt on all of the above. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D83494/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D83494 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
