We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
define void @foo(i16 %0, i16 %1) { entry: switch i16 %0, label %default [ i16 %1, label %on_one i16 2, label %on_two ] default: ; preds = %entry br label %exit on_one: ; preds = %entry br label %exit on_two: ; preds = %entry br label %exit exit: ; preds = %on_one, %on_two, %default ret void }
The program is illegal but can pass IR Verifier. (`LLParser' will still report error)
IR Verifier
However, if the programmer incorrectly setOperand of a switch in memory, IR Verifier won't report error.
setOperand
Will update a patch to align tests in IR Verifier and LLParser for switch testing.
LLParser
P.S> Should we add sanitization when Switch->setOperand(...) ? Currently, it only tests out of bound, should we also test for type consistency?
Switch->setOperand(...)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
See patch https://reviews.llvm.org/D136656
Sorry, something went wrong.
Fixed in 348189880b7bc9513ccdd0ea3a1e255b4d3190e7
DataCorrupted
No branches or pull requests
The program is illegal but can pass
IR Verifier
. (`LLParser' will still report error)However, if the programmer incorrectly
setOperand
of a switch in memory,IR Verifier
won't report error.Will update a patch to align tests in
IR Verifier
andLLParser
for switch testing.P.S> Should we add sanitization when
Switch->setOperand(...)
? Currently, it only tests out of bound, should we also test for type consistency?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: