On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Konstantin Serebryany <konstantin.s.serebry...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 03:31:21AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 3:20 AM, Dodji Seketeli <do...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> > Diego Novillo <dnovi...@google.com> a écrit: >>> > >>> >> Patches to libsanitizer should be sent upstream. We should only >>> >> contain a copy of the master in the LLVM repository. There should be >>> >> instructions in libsanitizer/README.gcc (Jakub, Dodji, are they there? >>> >> I can't check ATM). >>> > >>> > No there are not, for the moment. README.gcc just says where the >>> > sources the 'upstream' project is. >>> > >>> >>> What is the plan to add GCC specific support: >>> >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55291 >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55292 >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55304 >>> >>> and >>> >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg00967.html >> >> CCing Wei, I don't know the details about the import. To me it looks like >> that most or all of the libsanitizer/ level files (and >> libsanitizer/*/Makefile.{am,in}) don't originate from >> llvm/projects/compiler-rt/lib , so they should be owned by GCC and thus >> should be changed to support multilibs, use the same libtool/autoconf/etc. >> versions as rest of gcc etc. > > > Correct. Whatever happens to Makefile, configure and other non-.{cc,h} > files is a purely GCC thing. > >> >> For changes to the files actually imported from LLVM I guess it depends on >> if google is going to accept such changes in the LLVM upstream. > > Yes, we are willing to support any changes that make libasan support > more targets. > We would prefer all patches to go through LLVM first, and then ported > to GCC by copying files verbatim > This is the only way we can cope with the two versions. > (Wei, we will need the exact details for doing this in the README file)
I rather have it the other way around; like how libffi is handled. Since GCC has many more targets and a different schedule than LLVM. Thanks, Andrew > > --kcc > > >> For >> unsupported targets we want to add target-libsanitizer into noconfigdirs >> in toplevel configure. >> >> Note that just making libsanitizer to build on some architecture is not >> enough for full ASAN support, one needs to also add the target hook with >> mem>>3 to shadow offset, and I guess review all other spots where >> libsanitizer uses __i386__ or __x86_64__ macros. > > > >> >> I'd also say that using sanitizer_atomic_clang.h for GCC is not a good >> idea, now that GCC 4.7+ has __atomic_* support that should be usable >> for most of the __sanitizer::atomic* stuff. >> >> Jakub
