This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rC321060: Teach clang/NetBSD about additional dependencies for
sanitizers (authored by kamil, committed by ).
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41054
Files:
lib/Driver/ToolChains/CommonAr
krytarowski added a comment.
Ping?
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41054
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
krytarowski added a comment.
In particular, this issue has been detected with dtls_test.c (MSan test), but
it is valid to every program checking dlerror().
I've pluged more missing symbols through https://reviews.llvm.org/D41053, there
are still few but I'm now busy with teaching sanitizers abo
eugenis added a comment.
Yes, I support adding -lutil - sorry I was not clear about that.
By dlerror() errors, do you mean the warnings about missing interceptors that
appear with verbosity=1 (non-fatal), or something else?
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41054
krytarowski added a comment.
`-lutil` is just the same case as `-lrt` or `-lm` here.
The potential problem with with autoconf and similar is the design problem, not
NetBSD linking here with -lutil.
Without this -lutil, every sanitizer with interceptors will generate spurious
dlerror() errors f
eugenis added a comment.
One problem with interceptors is that any sanitized binary looks (to a
configure-like script) as if it implements forkpty. But an attempt to use
forkpty without actually linking -lutil will fail at runtime, because
interceptors are just wrappers.
Repository:
rL LLVM
krytarowski added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41054#955755, @joerg wrote:
> I'm not really a fan of linking libutil into all binaries. Why is this code
> using forkpty in first place and not posix_openpt/grantpt?
pid_t
forkpty(int *amaster, char *name, struct termios *term, s
joerg added a comment.
I'm not really a fan of linking libutil into all binaries. Why is this code
using forkpty in first place and not posix_openpt/grantpt?
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41054
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-co
krytarowski created this revision.
krytarowski added a project: Sanitizers.
Sanitizers on NetBSD require additional linkage:
- libutil for forkpty(3)
- libexecinfo for backtrace(3)
Sponsored by
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41054
Files:
lib/Driver/ToolChains/CommonArgs.c
