On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 1:54 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 12/04/15 13:28, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 6:39 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 06:32:38PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
+2015-12-04 Dmitry Vyukov
+
+ * sancov.c: Ne
On 12/04/15 13:28, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 6:39 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 06:32:38PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
+2015-12-04 Dmitry Vyukov
+
+ * sancov.c: New file.
+ * Makefile.in (OBJS): Add sancov.o.
+ * invoke.texi (-fsanitize-cover
On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 6:39 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 06:32:38PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>> +2015-12-04 Dmitry Vyukov
>> +
>> + * sancov.c: New file.
>> + * Makefile.in (OBJS): Add sancov.o.
>> + * invoke.texi (-fsanitize-coverage=trace-pc): Describe.
>>
On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 06:32:38PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> +2015-12-04 Dmitry Vyukov
> +
> + * sancov.c: New file.
> + * Makefile.in (OBJS): Add sancov.o.
> + * invoke.texi (-fsanitize-coverage=trace-pc): Describe.
> + * passes.def (sancov_pass): Add.
> + * tree-pass.h
On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Yury Gribov wrote:
> On 12/04/2015 04:41 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> While this has been posted after stage1 closed and I'm not really happy
>> that it missed the deadline, I'm willing to grant an exception, the patch
>> is small enough that it is ok at
On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> While this has been posted after stage1 closed and I'm not really happy
> that it missed the deadline, I'm willing to grant an exception, the patch
> is small enough that it is ok at this point of stage3. That said, next time
> please
On 12/04/2015 04:41 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
While this has been posted after stage1 closed and I'm not really happy
that it missed the deadline, I'm willing to grant an exception, the patch
is small enough that it is ok at this point of stage3. That said, next time
please try to submit new
Hi!
While this has been posted after stage1 closed and I'm not really happy
that it missed the deadline, I'm willing to grant an exception, the patch
is small enough that it is ok at this point of stage3. That said, next time
please try to submit new features in time.
Are there any plans for GCC
On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> I've attached updated patch (also reuploaded
> https://codereview.appspot.com/280140043).
> Fixed ChangeLog.
> Added invoke.texi.
> Fixed style issues.
>
> The function is defined only in kernel at the moment. Here is my patch:
> https://githu
I've attached updated patch (also reuploaded
https://codereview.appspot.com/280140043).
Fixed ChangeLog.
Added invoke.texi.
Fixed style issues.
The function is defined only in kernel at the moment. Here is my patch:
https://github.com/dvyukov/linux/commit/f86eda0c895c47ea02ee37e981aeade7b03014d7
I
On 12/02/2015 06:38 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
One thing to consider would
be whether you really need this split between O0/optimize versions, or
whether you can find a place in the queue where to insert it
unconditionally. Have you considered this at all or did you just follow
asan/tsan?
I inser
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 05:55:29PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>> Can you point to some concrete coding style violations (besides
>> function comments)?
>>
>>
>> > We seem to have no established process for deciding whether we want a new
>> >
On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 05:55:29PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> Can you point to some concrete coding style violations (besides
> function comments)?
>
>
> > We seem to have no established process for deciding whether we want a new
> > feature. I am not sure how to approach such a question, and
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 12/02/2015 05:55 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>>
>> Can you point to some concrete coding style violations (besides
>> function comments)?
>>
>> (flag_sanitize & (SANITIZE_ADDRESS | SANITIZE_THREAD \
>> -
On 12/02/2015 05:55 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
Can you point to some concrete coding style violations (besides
function comments)?
(flag_sanitize & (SANITIZE_ADDRESS | SANITIZE_THREAD \
- | SANITIZE_UNDEFINED | SANITIZE_NONDEFAULT)))
+
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 12/02/2015 05:10 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>>
>> ping
>
>
> I do not see the original submission in my archives.
That's strange. I don't see it in gcc-patches archives as well.
The original email contained a plain-text patch attachment. Att
On 12/02/2015 05:10 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
ping
I do not see the original submission in my archives. This one comes too
late to make it into gcc-6. I can make some initial comments.
This patch adds support for coverage-guided fuzzing:
https://codereview.appspot.com/280140043
Please send
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> ping
>
> Number of bugs found with this coverage in kernel already crossed 40:
> https://github.com/google/syzkaller/wiki/Found-Bugs
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>> +syzkaller group
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 27, 201
ping
Number of bugs found with this coverage in kernel already crossed 40:
https://github.com/google/syzkaller/wiki/Found-Bugs
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> +syzkaller group
>
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> This patch adds su
19 matches
Mail list logo
