maxjhandsome
/
llvm-project
forked from OSchip/llvm-project
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Releases Wiki Activity
llvm-project/clang/test/CodeGenCXX/operator-new.cpp

30 lines
882 B
C++
Raw Normal View History

implement PR5654: add -fassume-sane-operator-new, which is enabled by default, and adds the malloc attribute to the global function new() and to the overloaded new operators. feel free to chage the name to this lengthy argument llvm-svn: 91543
2009-12-17 00:59:22 +08:00
// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple i686-pc-linux-gnu -emit-llvm -o %t-1.ll %s
// RUN: FileCheck -check-prefix SANE --input-file=%t-1.ll %s
// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple i686-pc-linux-gnu -emit-llvm -fno-assume-sane-operator-new -o %t-2.ll %s
// RUN: FileCheck -check-prefix SANENOT --input-file=%t-2.ll %s
class teste {
int A;
Turn access control on by default in -cc1. Remove -faccess-control from -cc1; add -fno-access-control. Make the driver pass -fno-access-control by default. Update a bunch of tests to be correct under access control. llvm-svn: 100880
2010-04-10 03:03:51 +08:00
public:
implement PR5654: add -fassume-sane-operator-new, which is enabled by default, and adds the malloc attribute to the global function new() and to the overloaded new operators. feel free to chage the name to this lengthy argument llvm-svn: 91543
2009-12-17 00:59:22 +08:00
teste() : A(2) {}
};
void f1() {
implement rdar://5739832 - operator new should check for overflow in multiply, causing clang to compile this code into something that correctly throws a length error, fixing a potential integer overflow security attack: void *test(long N) { return new int[N]; } int main() { test(1L << 62); } We do this even when exceptions are disabled, because it is better for the code to abort than for the attack to succeed. This is heavily based on a patch that Fariborz wrote. llvm-svn: 108915
2010-07-21 04:19:24 +08:00
// SANE: declare noalias i8* @_Znwj(
// SANENOT: declare i8* @_Znwj(
implement PR5654: add -fassume-sane-operator-new, which is enabled by default, and adds the malloc attribute to the global function new() and to the overloaded new operators. feel free to chage the name to this lengthy argument llvm-svn: 91543
2009-12-17 00:59:22 +08:00
new teste();
}
implement rdar://5739832 - operator new should check for overflow in multiply, causing clang to compile this code into something that correctly throws a length error, fixing a potential integer overflow security attack: void *test(long N) { return new int[N]; } int main() { test(1L << 62); } We do this even when exceptions are disabled, because it is better for the code to abort than for the attack to succeed. This is heavily based on a patch that Fariborz wrote. llvm-svn: 108915
2010-07-21 04:19:24 +08:00
// rdar://5739832 - operator new should check for overflow in multiply.
void *f2(long N) {
return new int[N];
Abstract IR generation of array cookies into the C++ ABI class and implement ARM array cookies. Also fix a few unfortunate bugs: - throwing dtors in deletes prevented the allocation from being deleted - adding the cookie to the new[] size was not being considered for overflow (and, more seriously, was screwing up the earlier checks) - deleting an array via a pointer to array of class type was not causing any destructors to be run and was passing the unadjusted pointer to the deallocator - lots of address-space problems, in case anyone wants to support free store in a variant address space :) llvm-svn: 112814
2010-09-02 17:58:18 +08:00
// SANE: [[UWO:%.*]] = call {{.*}} @llvm.umul.with.overflow
// SANE-NEXT: [[OVER:%.*]] = extractvalue {{.*}} [[UWO]], 1
// SANE-NEXT: [[SUM:%.*]] = extractvalue {{.*}} [[UWO]], 0
// SANE-NEXT: [[RESULT:%.*]] = select i1 [[OVER]], i32 -1, i32 [[SUM]]
// SANE-NEXT: call noalias i8* @_Znaj(i32 [[RESULT]])
implement rdar://5739832 - operator new should check for overflow in multiply, causing clang to compile this code into something that correctly throws a length error, fixing a potential integer overflow security attack: void *test(long N) { return new int[N]; } int main() { test(1L << 62); } We do this even when exceptions are disabled, because it is better for the code to abort than for the attack to succeed. This is heavily based on a patch that Fariborz wrote. llvm-svn: 108915
2010-07-21 04:19:24 +08:00
}