[plain text] So far I was not able to reproduce the compilation failure -- and I am asking someone from the PowerPC side to help. Please apply any minimal #ifdef patch to sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cc to make it compile, while keeping x86_64 tests pass.
If we revert the patch now, I will not be able to work on it again in nearest months, which means 4.9 will not get updated asan. How bad that is -- I don't know. --kcc On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Kostya Serebryany <k...@google.com> wrote: > So far I was not able to reproduce the compilation failure -- and I am > asking someone from the PowerPC side to help. > Please apply any minimal #ifdef patch to sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cc > to make it compile, while keeping x86_64 tests pass. > > If we revert the patch now, I will not be able to work on it again in > nearest months, which means 4.9 will not get updated asan. > How bad that is -- I don't know. > > --kcc > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Michael Meissner > <meiss...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >> >> It has been a week since the libsanitizer patches were checked in, which >> broke >> the PowerPC64 Linux system along with others (PR 59009 for powerpc). >> Please >> revert these patches while you are working on proper fixes for all of the >> hosts >> and targets. >> >> Quoting from the GCC development plan: >> >> Patch Reversion >> >> If a patch is committed which introduces a regression on any target which >> the >> Steering Committee considers to be important and if: >> >> the problem is reported to the original poster; 48 hours pass without the >> original poster or any other party indicating that a fix will be >> forthcoming in >> the very near future; two people with write privileges to the affected >> area of >> the compiler determine that the best course of action is to revert the >> patch; >> then they may revert the patch. >> >> (The list of important targets will be revised at the beginning of each >> release >> cycle, if necessary, and is part of the release criteria.) >> >> After the patch has been reverted, the poster may appeal the decision to >> the >> Steering Committee. >> >> Note that no distinction is made between patches which are themselves >> buggy and >> patches that expose latent bugs elsewhere in the compiler. >> >> -- >> Michael Meissner, IBM >> IBM, M/S 2506R, 550 King Street, Littleton, MA 01460, USA >> email: meiss...@linux.vnet.ibm.com, phone: +1 (978) 899-4797 >> >
