lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [May]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] kcov: add __no_sanitize_coverage to fix noinstr for all architectures
On Wed, 26 May 2021 at 08:25, Marco Elver <elver@google.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 May 2021 at 03:54, Miguel Ojeda
> <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 9:13 PM Marco Elver <elver@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Long story short: this is not fixable without more Clang changes. The
> > > only way to do it without a version check would be to introduce
> > > no_sanitize_coverage attr to Clang, which we probably shouldn't do,
> > > and I didn't want to fight it. ;-)
> >
> > I am not sure I followed why you would not want to support querying
> > for the attributes (if they are intended to be used separately).
>
> Not my decision, but some historical decision in Clang. Somebody
> thought "no_sanitize(<string_literal>)" simplifies things. Hence,
> Clang only knows about the no_sanitize attribute but not its
> "subattributes".
>
> > But regardless of that, why not the feature flag at least then, to be
> > consistent with the others?
>
> __has_feature(coverage_sanitizer) does not work either (yet).
>
> > Going back to version checks seems bad -- they should be reserved for
> > e.g. known broken versions and things like that. New compiler features
> > should come with new feature flags...
> >
> > In fact, for Clang, I do not see any version checks in code at the
> > moment, so this would be the first :(
>
> In this instance it's absolutely required (for now). But if you don't
> like it I'll go back to trying to fix Clang more. I'll check with
> Clang folks which one we can implement, the feature check or the
> attribute check.

Ok, let's wait for response to: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103159
If that lands in the LLVM repo I'll change to use
__has_feature(coverage_sanitizer), and send a v2. That __has_feature()
is a bit of a lie though, because fsanitize-coverage has long been
supported, but it just so happens that if we get it, then its
availability implies availability of the no_sanitize("coverage")
attribute.

Thanks,
-- Marco

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-05-26 14:39    [W:0.061 / U:0.140 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site