On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 2:40 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 2:39 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Konstantin Serebryany
>> wrote:
>>> H.J.,
>>> Question about this patch.
>>> Will it work if we simply replace
>>>#if __WORDSIZE == 64
>>> with
>>> #ifdef x
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 2:39 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Konstantin Serebryany
> wrote:
>> H.J.,
>> Question about this patch.
>> Will it work if we simply replace
>>#if __WORDSIZE == 64
>> with
>> #ifdef x86_64
>> ?
>>
>> Today, x86_64 is the only 64-bit architect
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Konstantin Serebryany
wrote:
> H.J.,
> Question about this patch.
> Will it work if we simply replace
>#if __WORDSIZE == 64
> with
> #ifdef x86_64
> ?
>
> Today, x86_64 is the only 64-bit architecture supported by asan
> run-time on linux anyway.
>
>
That wo
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Konstantin Serebryany
> wrote:
>> H.J.,
>> Question about this patch.
>> Will it work if we simply replace
>>#if __WORDSIZE == 64
>> with
>> #ifdef x86_64
>> ?
>>
>> Today, x86_64 is the only 64-bit arc
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Konstantin Serebryany
wrote:
> H.J.,
> Question about this patch.
> Will it work if we simply replace
>#if __WORDSIZE == 64
> with
> #ifdef x86_64
> ?
>
> Today, x86_64 is the only 64-bit architecture supported by asan
> run-time on linux anyway.
Because x86
H.J.,
Question about this patch.
Will it work if we simply replace
#if __WORDSIZE == 64
with
#ifdef x86_64
?
Today, x86_64 is the only 64-bit architecture supported by asan
run-time on linux anyway.
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 1:53 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Konstant
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 03:31:21AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 3:20 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
>> > Diego Novillo a écrit:
>> >
>> >> Patches to libsanitizer should be sent upstream. We should only
>> >> contain a copy
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 1:53 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Konstantin Serebryany
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 03:31:21AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 3:20 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
>>>
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Konstantin Serebryany
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 03:31:21AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 3:20 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrot
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 3:20 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
> Diego Novillo a écrit:
>
>> Patches to libsanitizer should be sent upstream. We should only
>> contain a copy of the master in the LLVM repository. There should be
>> instructions in libsanitizer/README.gcc (Jakub, Dodji, are they there?
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Konstantin Serebryany
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 03:31:21AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 3:20 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
>>> > Diego Novillo a écrit:
>>> >
>>> >> Patches to libsa
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Konstantin Serebryany
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 03:31:21AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 3:20 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
>>> > Diego Novillo a écrit:
>>> >
>>> >> Patches to libsa
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 03:31:21AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 3:20 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
>> > Diego Novillo a écrit:
>> >
>> >> Patches to libsanitizer should be sent upstream. We should only
>> >> contain a copy
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 9:59 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> I rather hate having to submit changes like this in two different
> places. Why can't the people who added the target library like this
> take responsibility for doing the merges from the GCC source to the
> upstream? Like libffi is handle
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 03:31:21AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 3:20 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
> > Diego Novillo a écrit:
> >
> >> Patches to libsanitizer should be sent upstream. We should only
> >> contain a copy of the master in the LLVM repository. There should be
> >> in
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 3:20 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
> Diego Novillo a écrit:
>
>> Patches to libsanitizer should be sent upstream. We should only
>> contain a copy of the master in the LLVM repository. There should be
>> instructions in libsanitizer/README.gcc (Jakub, Dodji, are they there?
Diego Novillo a écrit:
> Patches to libsanitizer should be sent upstream. We should only
> contain a copy of the master in the LLVM repository. There should be
> instructions in libsanitizer/README.gcc (Jakub, Dodji, are they there?
> I can't check ATM).
No there are not, for the moment. REA
> Patches to libsanitizer should be sent upstream. We should only
> contain a copy of the master in the LLVM repository. There should be
> instructions in libsanitizer/README.gcc (Jakub, Dodji, are they there?
> I can't check ATM).
I don't think that's acceptable. GCC supports far more archite
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 6:36 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Linux/x32 doesn't have __NR_mmap2/__NR_fstat64 and uses
>>> __NR_mmap/__NR_fstat, just like Linux/x86-64. Tested on Li
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 6:36 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Linux/x32 doesn't have __NR_mmap2/__NR_fstat64 and uses
>> __NR_mmap/__NR_fstat, just like Linux/x86-64. Tested on Linux/x32.
>> OK to install?
>
> Patches to libsanitizer should
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 6:36 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Linux/x32 doesn't have __NR_mmap2/__NR_fstat64 and uses
>> __NR_mmap/__NR_fstat, just like Linux/x86-64. Tested on Linux/x32.
>> OK to install?
>
> Patches to libsanitizer should
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 6:36 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Linux/x32 doesn't have __NR_mmap2/__NR_fstat64 and uses
> __NR_mmap/__NR_fstat, just like Linux/x86-64. Tested on Linux/x32.
> OK to install?
Patches to libsanitizer should be sent upstream. We should only
contain a copy of the master in
Hi,
Linux/x32 doesn't have __NR_mmap2/__NR_fstat64 and uses
__NR_mmap/__NR_fstat, just like Linux/x86-64. Tested on Linux/x32.
OK to install?
Thanks.
H.J.
--
2012-11-12 H.J. Lu
PR other/55292
* sanitizer_common/sanitizer_linux.cc (internal_mmap): Use
__NR_mmap if __
23 matches
Mail list logo