https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63939
--- Comment #10 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #9) > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8) > > No. libsanitizer is only supported on selected *-*-linux* targets, and > > (apparently prematurely so) on x86_64-*-darwin* and i?86-*-darwin*. AFAIK, sanitizer works fine on (x86) darwin "upstream" so we need to get to the bottom of what we're doing/testing differently here. > Fair enough, I didn't realize that. For a long time, libsanitizer broke > bootstrap on darwin so I was used to build without it. > > An option is to have a recent llvm-symbolizer in one's PATH while running > the test suite. The only small snag here is that llvm-symbolizer is not a 'standard tool' but requires a devt build of llvm. Probably doesn't matter to most serious darwin devs (since they'll likely have an llvm build anyway) - but there needs to be an availability check before relying on it. This brings the number of failures (make check-gcc > RUNTESTFLAGS="asan.exp") down from 60 to 36. (I will investigate the > remaining failures separately.) your count is much smaller than Dominique's is that after applying some other patch? FWIW, I also see huge failure counts on my x86-64-darwin12 builds.
