lebedev.ri added a comment. In D137381#4038716 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D137381#4038716>, @MaskRay wrote:
> I am unfamiliar with Clang codegen so I am just commenting about what a user > may feel about this feature. > > `compiler-rt/test/ubsan/TestCases/Misc/exception-escape.cpp` cannot > demonstrate the value of the new UBSan check `-fsanitize=exception-escape`, > as the executable will fail without the option (Clang emits `call` instead of > `invoke` for a nounwind function call, and there is no LSDA information, > libgcc/libunwind will call terminate; it's trivial to get more diagnostic > with a SIBABRT signal handler). > To demonstrate the value, `footgun` and its caller need to be in different > TUs and the caller does not know `footgun` is nounwind. > In such a setup, I think people likely care more about > `-fno-exceptions`/`-fexceptions` exception propagation instead of > `__attribute__((pure))` and find `-fsanitize=exception-escape` not do what it > may advertise. > > The more common `-fno-exceptions`/`-fexceptions` exception propagation > dilemma can be detected today with `-fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables`. Thank you for taking a look. I'm afraid this review comment is not based on reality, so i'm forced to ignore it. The whole point of the clang change is to *NOT* lower such calls that we "know" will not unwind to a `call`, but into an `invoke`, with sanitization in the `landingpad`. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D137381/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D137381 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
