[resending in plain text mode; arghh]
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Konstantin Serebryany <konstantin.s.serebry...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Christophe, > > We would love to see the aarch64-specific changes in upstream repo > (see https://code.google.com/p/address-sanitizer/wiki/HowToBuild). > Once the changes are in the upstream svn, one of us will merge them to the > gcc trunk. > > If you have some non-trivial concerns, please reach us at > address-saniti...@googlegroups.com > My question to you would be: will it be possible to have a public build bot > for aarch64? > (W/o regular automated testing we will be breaking aarch64 every second day) > > > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:44 PM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 05:35:45PM +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote: >> > I have been looking at enabling libsanitizer for aarch64 GCC compilers. >> > >> > To make the build succeed, I had to modify libsanitizer code: >> > - some syscalls are not available on aarch64 (libsanitizer uses some >> > legacy ones such as open, readlink, stat, ...) >> > - unwinding code needs to be added. >> > >> > What's the way of discussing such patches? On GCC lists or elsewhere? >> >> libsanitizer/ changes for code imported from upstream repo needs to be >> discussed with the asan maintainers and done first in the upstream repo, >> then imported. >> >> > Then arises a runtime problem: aarch64's frame grows upward which is >> > not supported: how long would it take to develop this support if at >> > all possible? >> >> Better do what all other targets that want to support -fstack-protector* >> or -fsanitize=address, use frame grows downward if flag_stack_protector >> || flag_asan. You wouldn't have -fstack-protector* support otherwise >> either. > > > I would second that. > Supporting upward-growing stack will introduce quite a bit of disruption in > the run-time library and > in both compiler modules (GCC and LLVM). > > >> >> >> > I have not looked at tsan in detail yet, it currently does not build >> > for aarch64 either. >> >> tsan is right now x86_64 only, but that decision is pretty much the >> runtime >> library decision on what will be supported. > > > indeed, today tsan is x86_64-only. (it even has a small x86_64 assembly > blob). > this tool heavily depends on 64-bit atomic loads/stores, so we are unlikely > to ever implement > it on 32-bit architectures (ARM, i386, etc). > But on aarch64 (or, e.g. PowerPC) it should be doable. > For tsan-related discussions you are welcome to > thread-saniti...@googlegroups.com > > --kcc > > >> >> >> Jakub > >
