Hi, Just committed as r199606. Thanks Christophe.
On 31 May 2013 16:53, Konstantin Serebryany <konstantin.s.serebry...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Jack Howarth <howa...@bromo.med.uc.edu> > wrote: >> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 04:42:21PM +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'd like to backport libsanitizer commit #182922: >>> Index: sanitizer_common/sanitizer_linux.cc >>> =================================================================== >>> --- sanitizer_common/sanitizer_linux.cc (revision 199453) >>> +++ sanitizer_common/sanitizer_linux.cc (working copy) >>> @@ -410,7 +410,9 @@ bool MemoryMappingLayout::Next(uptr *sta >>> CHECK_EQ(*current_++, ' '); >>> while (IsDecimal(*current_)) >>> current_++; >>> - CHECK_EQ(*current_++, ' '); >>> + // Qemu may lack the trailing space. >>> + // http://code.google.com/p/address-sanitizer/issues/detail?id=160 >>> + // CHECK_EQ(*current_++, ' '); >>> // Skip spaces. >>> while (current_ < next_line && *current_ == ' ') >>> current_++; >>> >>> It helps handling qemu's output for /proc/self/maps until the >>> corresponding patch in qemu is available to developers (it has been >>> accepted, but not part of a release yet). >>> >>> OK to commit in trunk? >> >> Christophe, >> I believe that changes from upstream are generally brought into FSF gcc >> with a >> complete merge of libsanitizer rather than just specific patches. We do seem >> to be long past due for remerge with upstream though. >> Jack > > That's correct, however I specifically asked to commit this patch > directly to gcc. > The same patch is already in upstream repo. > Unless anyone objects, this patch is OK to commit. > > I am not planing any new merge from upstream to GCC in the nearest > couple of months, unless someone has a good reason to do that. > Most likely, the next merge will go when we have LeakSanitizer (leak > detector) in stable shape. > > --kcc > > > >> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Christophe
