https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84250
chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
--- Comment #12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84250
--- Comment #10 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Hi Marek, sorry, I'm not really tracking this anymore :(.
I don't remember exactly why option 1) from
https://github.com/google/sanitizers/issues/912#issuecomment-363525012 doesn'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78878
--- Comment #2 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Should be fixed, I guess, by:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67165
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77631
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84250
--- Comment #8 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #7)
> Maxim, Jakub: Can the bug be marked as resolved? Or at least update Known to
> work?
Hm, I think the bug is still present -- the first f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81697
chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88022
--- Comment #5 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #4)
> Agree with Jakub that if really not necessary, I wouldn't complicate
> libsanitizer.
My point was that we won't need to complic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63292
chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88022
--- Comment #2 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think nothing prevents us from trying several ranges, the question is whether
upstream guys will accept this...
I've just noticed that the code for dynamic shadow offset is already prese
: sanitizer
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: dodji at gcc dot gnu.org, dvyukov at gcc dot gnu.org,
jakub at gcc dot gnu.org, kcc at gcc dot gnu.org, marxin at
gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
This
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87840
chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78651
--- Comment #11 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to chefmax from comment #10)
> Seems to be closed on GCC 8 and 7, OK to close?
s/closed/fixed/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78651
--- Comment #10 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Seems to be closed on GCC 8 and 7, OK to close?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86755
chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85476
chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m.ostapenko at samsung dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86656
Bug 86656 depends on bug 80798, which changed state.
Bug 80798 Summary: Dynamic stack buffer (alloca) overflow in ObjC compiler.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80798
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80798
chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80798
chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84250
--- Comment #5 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Wed Jul 4 19:49:06 2018
New Revision: 262421
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262421&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
2018-07-04 Maxim Ostapenko
PR s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86198
--- Comment #4 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Thu Jun 21 05:42:53 2018
New Revision: 261832
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=261832&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libbacktrace/
2018-06-21 Denis Khalikov
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86090
--- Comment #3 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Wed Jun 13 19:51:42 2018
New Revision: 261564
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=261564&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-06-13 Denis Khalikov
libsanitizer/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85230
--- Comment #17 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15)
> (In reply to chefmax from comment #14)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #13)
> > > or introduce a new virtual pseudo r
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85230
--- Comment #14 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #13)
> or introduce a new virtual pseudo register that vregs pass would map directly
> to dynamic_offset.
Yeah, that's what I though about
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85230
--- Comment #11 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> Unfortunately that doesn't work, because the second argument to
> __asan_allocas_unpoison is incorrect then.
Unfortunately we can'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85230
--- Comment #7 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dmitry Vyukov from comment #6)
> Right!
>
> Unpoisoning before restoring SP looks like a reasonable and simple solution
> to me. I don't see any potential downs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85230
chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78651
--- Comment #6 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Mon Mar 19 19:59:56 2018
New Revision: 258658
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=258658&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-03-19 Maxim Ostapenko
gcc/
PR s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78651
--- Comment #5 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 43652
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43652&action=edit
Untested fix
Simple untested fix that seems to cure the issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78651
chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81697
--- Comment #4 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Thu Nov 30 21:38:16 2017
New Revision: 255283
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255283&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
gcc/
2017-11-30 Maxim Ostapenko
PR s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81861
--- Comment #8 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Thu Aug 17 11:58:13 2017
New Revision: 251145
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251145&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-17 Maxim Ostapenko
PR targ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80565
--- Comment #3 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Thu Jun 29 08:50:21 2017
New Revision: 249771
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249771&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-06-29 Yury Gribov
PR bootstr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67328
--- Comment #7 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Tue Jun 13 11:13:52 2017
New Revision: 249149
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=249149&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-06-13 Yury Gribov
gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80414
--- Comment #1 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Thu Apr 13 14:52:23 2017
New Revision: 246909
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246909&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/80414
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78663
--- Comment #9 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Fri Feb 3 12:17:59 2017
New Revision: 245149
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245149&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/78663
* sanitize
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061
--- Comment #33 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Fri Feb 3 09:13:06 2017
New Revision: 245148
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245148&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR lto/79061
* asan.c (asan_ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061
--- Comment #32 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Fri Feb 3 07:17:38 2017
New Revision: 245144
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245144&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR lto/79061
* asan.c (asan_ad
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061
--- Comment #30 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Mon Jan 30 16:06:15 2017
New Revision: 245033
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245033&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR lto/79061
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061
--- Comment #19 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Wed Jan 25 07:45:40 2017
New Revision: 244890
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244890&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR lto/79061
gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061
--- Comment #17 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Mon Jan 23 09:12:29 2017
New Revision: 244773
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244773&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Revert fix for PR lto/79061 due to this regresses
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061
--- Comment #15 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Wed Jan 18 16:06:31 2017
New Revision: 244581
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244581&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR lto/79061
gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78887
--- Comment #8 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Fri Jan 13 10:08:50 2017
New Revision: 244402
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244402&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/78887
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79042
--- Comment #4 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Thu Jan 12 07:44:17 2017
New Revision: 244347
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244347&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR lto/79042
* lto-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79042
--- Comment #3 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Wed Jan 11 16:53:52 2017
New Revision: 244324
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244324&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR lto/79042
* lto-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79042
--- Comment #2 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Wed Jan 11 12:57:42 2017
New Revision: 244314
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244314&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR lto/79042
* lto-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78532
--- Comment #9 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Wed Nov 30 12:32:55 2016
New Revision: 243016
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243016&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add PR sanitizer/78532 patch to libsanitizer/LOCAL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78532
--- Comment #8 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Wed Nov 30 12:31:07 2016
New Revision: 243014
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243014&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/78532
* sanitize
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78307
--- Comment #8 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Wed Nov 16 11:13:19 2016
New Revision: 242478
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242478&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/78307
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63958
--- Comment #15 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Tue Nov 8 22:06:02 2016
New Revision: 241978
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241978&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/63958
Reapply:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71480
--- Comment #4 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Fri Jun 10 12:57:14 2016
New Revision: 237306
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237306&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-06-10 Maxim Ostapenko
PR sanitiz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64354
--- Comment #2 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Thu May 19 12:05:59 2016
New Revision: 236457
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236457&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-05-19 Maxim Ostapenko
PR sanitiz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70624
--- Comment #11 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Thu Apr 21 12:19:54 2016
New Revision: 235338
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235338&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Cherry-pick r266868 from upstream.
PR s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70624
--- Comment #10 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Thu Apr 21 12:12:53 2016
New Revision: 235337
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235337&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Cherry-pick r266868 from upstream.
PR s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70541
--- Comment #5 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Fri Apr 8 10:46:13 2016
New Revision: 234827
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234827&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-04-08 Maxim Ostapenko
PR sanitiz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70474
--- Comment #6 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Tue Apr 5 11:52:34 2016
New Revision: 234744
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234744&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Cherry-pick r224315,221379 and r241487 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69147
--- Comment #19 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
Should be fixed now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69147
--- Comment #18 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Wed Jan 13 09:27:38 2016
New Revision: 232316
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232316&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Cherry-pick r224315 and r241487 from upstream.
PR sanitizer/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69147
--- Comment #15 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
Created attachment 37316
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37316&action=edit
Third attempt.
Eh, it seems that I missed one another commit from upstream that needed to be
backported, sor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69147
--- Comment #13 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
Created attachment 37313
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37313&action=edit
Second fix.
My bad, could you try this one?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69147
--- Comment #10 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
Created attachment 37310
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37310&action=edit
Proposed fix.
« El Capitan » is OS X 10.11, right? So, this is my vision of the problem:
In OS X 10.11+ or
000001)
>
> without any backtrace available.
>
> > Le 11 janv. 2016 à 17:20, chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org
> > a écrit :
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69147
> >
> > --- Comment #6 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
> > Ok, it seems
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69147
--- Comment #6 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
Ok, it seems that libasan calls some function to be intercepted while
AsanInitInternal still not completed. Could you try to run memcmp-1.exe under
gdb to provide a backtrace from failed CHECK? This way, we
test love? If yes, how? If no, I guess I have to
> do a bootstrap with it, but how?
>
> TIA
>
> Dominique
>
> > Le 11 janv. 2016 à 10:23, chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org
> > a écrit :
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69147
> >
&g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69147
--- Comment #2 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
Dominique, could you please run ASan tests with
ASAN_OPTIONS=debug=1:verbosity=2? This might be helpful for further debugging.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64820
--- Comment #10 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
Should be fixed on gcc-4_9-branch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64820
--- Comment #9 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Tue Dec 8 11:34:28 2015
New Revision: 231405
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=231405&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-12-08 Maxim Ostapenko
Backport from mainline.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64820
--- Comment #7 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
(In reply to joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se from comment #6)
> Is this fix in gcc 4.9.3?
No, this didn't go to GCC 4.9, only to GCC 5.
> If not, will go into 4.9.4?
Well, actually we didn't plan backport
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68122
Maxim Ostapenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68016
--- Comment #8 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
(In reply to Reid Kleckner from comment #7)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> > Because symbol size is part of the ABI, and LLVM emits different symbol size
> > between -fsanitize=address and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68099
--- Comment #5 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
(In reply to Jonathan Ben-Avraham from comment #3)
> (In reply to Maxim Ostapenko from comment #2)
> > I actually believe this is a dup of PR66977, that was fixed by Marek quite
> > time ago. Could you try
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68099
Maxim Ostapenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68016
--- Comment #4 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
Actualy, LLVM is not better here (perhaps even worse). Consider the following
testcase (it's the same Jakub provided in PR63888):
max@max:/tmp$ cat libfoo.c
long f = 4;
long foo (long *p) {
return *p;
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68042
--- Comment #6 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
Should be fix on trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68042
--- Comment #5 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Fri Oct 23 07:22:37 2015
New Revision: 229212
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229212&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix ASan output pattern tests on Darwin.
gcc/testsuite/
PR s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68016
Maxim Ostapenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68042
--- Comment #3 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
Created attachment 36562
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36562&action=edit
Draft patch.
Here an expected patch for memcmp-1.c and sanity-check-pure-c-1.c output
patterns. Does it fix t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68041
--- Comment #12 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
Should be fixed on trunk. Dominique, let me know if the issue still occurs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68041
--- Comment #11 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Thu Oct 22 09:47:17 2015
New Revision: 229168
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229168&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Fix bootstrap on x86_64-apple-darwin14 after r229119.
libsanitizer/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68041
--- Comment #10 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #9)
> > Created attachment 36556 [details]
> > The patch I've posted to gcc-patches ML for review.
>
> I have not tested the part "removes -lc++abi flag for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68041
--- Comment #8 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
Created attachment 36556
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36556&action=edit
The patch I've posted to gcc-patches ML for review.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68042
--- Comment #1 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
I wonder if the fix would be just output patterns adjustment (just like here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63939)?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68041
--- Comment #5 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #4)
> With the patch in comment 2, bootstrap completed without any problem.
>
> Preliminary tests for g++ and asan
>
> === g++ Summary for unix
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68016
--- Comment #2 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
Ok, I guess won't fix here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68041
--- Comment #2 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
Created attachment 36555
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36555&action=edit
First version of the fix.
Dominique, I'm sorry about that. Could you please try attached patch? There may
be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68041
--- Comment #1 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
Yes, this is mine.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63888
--- Comment #41 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Wed Oct 21 07:47:54 2015
New Revision: 229114
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229114&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libsanitizer/
PR bootstrap/63888
Reapply:
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63958
--- Comment #14 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
Author: chefmax
Date: Wed Oct 21 07:44:35 2015
New Revision: 229113
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229113&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libsanitizer/
PR sanitizer/63958
Reapply:
20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63888
Maxim Ostapenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org
ormal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: dodji at gcc dot gnu.org, dvyukov at gcc dot gnu.org,
jakub at gcc dot gnu.org, kcc at gcc dot gn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67867
--- Comment #2 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
Created attachment 36451
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36451&action=edit
Reprocase.
: 6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: dodji at gcc dot gnu.org, dvyukov at gcc dot gnu.org
Component: sanitizer
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: dodji at gcc dot gnu.org, dvyukov at gcc dot gnu.org,
jakub at gcc dot gnu.org, kcc at gcc dot gnu.org,
mpolacek at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66908
--- Comment #15 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #14)
> This particular issue is fixed for GCC 6.
>
> Maxim, could you please open a separate PR for the ARM issue? I'll try to
> fix that one as a follow-up.
Sure
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66908
--- Comment #12 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #11)
> Hmm, still can't reproduce even with vanilla trunk:
>
> A = A.0;
> D.2679 = get.__pfn;
> D.2680 = (long int) D.2679;
> D.2681 = D.2680 & 1;
> if (D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66908
--- Comment #10 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #9)
> Oh silly me! This should work; Maxim, could you possibly try this patch?
Sorry, Marek, nothing changed for C++ testcase:
D.6137 = get.__delta;
D
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66908
Maxim Ostapenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org
NCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: dodji at gcc dot gnu.org, dvyukov at gcc dot gnu.org,
jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57271
Maxim Ostapenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66046
--- Comment #5 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #3)
> Oops. Let me prepare a patch. But I won't be able to test -- are you
> willing to test it once I have something?. If it passes both x86_64, I'll
> just commi
Component: testsuite
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: tetra2005 at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Host: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Target: arm-linux-gnueabi
I see lots of output pattern test
||chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org,
||ygribov at gcc dot gnu.org
Host||x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Known to fail||6.0
--- Comment #7 from Maxim Ostapenko
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
