This diff is here to give an overview of the patch that suggests moving toward adding support for MMU-less target platforms. This diff is not to be committed.
Kostya, thanks for your reply. Re: the "platforms that lack such support": we believe that this proposal affects many custom platforms based on modern IP cores. In some cases such platforms intentionally lack the support for virtual memory, but in all other respects are capable of and can benefit from using sanitizers. In our case we are targeting an ARM-based platform, which is well supported by other parts of LLVM already, so it's not about rare and/or exotic targets.
Here's the link to the original RFC message:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/llvm-dev/Xi5Jl4s_Ofc/oboR4zkgAAAJ
I would suggest to keep the existing name as is.
Why do we need the second MemToPShadow? It is used in 2 places in tsan code which looks somewhat strange. Can't we have a single MemToShadow which maps user address to the address where shadow for that address is stored?