================
@@ -831,6 +831,28 @@ ASTContext::getCanonicalTemplateTemplateParmDecl(
return CanonTTP;
}
+/// Check if a type can have its sanitizer instrumentation elided.
+/// Determine this by its presence in a SCL alongside its specified categories.
+/// For example:
+/// ignorelist.txt>
+/// [{unsigned-integer-overflow,signed-integer-overflow}]
+/// type:*=no_sanitize
+/// type:size_t=sanitize
+/// <ignorelist.txt
+/// Supplying the above ignorelist.txt will disable overflow sanitizer
+/// instrumentation for all types except "size_t".
+bool ASTContext::isTypeIgnoredBySanitizer(const SanitizerMask &Mask,
+ const QualType &Ty) const {
+ bool sanitizeType =
+ NoSanitizeL->containsType(Mask, Ty.getAsString(), "sanitize");
+
+ bool noSanitizeType =
----------------
JustinStitt wrote:
> Can you add a test to control that? with current patch canonical works.
For the purposes of the overflow sanitizers, we want to support both canonical
and typedef types.
e.g.:
```
type:int=sanitize
... or ...
type:my_int=sanitize
```
The current tests sort of already test for both canonical and typedef types
implicitly. Do we think a more explicit test is required?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/107332
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
