On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 7:59 AM, John David Anglin wrote:
> As far as I can tell, libsanitizer works on hppa-linux. So, the change
> could be added to the llvm tree.
> However, I'm unlikely to test anything in the tree unless someone tells me
> there's something to test.
Submitted the hppa patch
As far as I can tell, libsanitizer works on hppa-linux. So, the
change could be added to the llvm tree.
However, I'm unlikely to test anything in the tree unless someone
tells me there's something to test.
Dave
On 15-Nov-13, at 10:52 PM, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
Dave,
Do you want the
Dave,
Do you want the asan/asan_linux.cc (# elif defined(__hppa__)) part to
be in the llvm tree?
--kcc
On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 3:55 AM, John David Anglin wrote:
> On 15-Nov-13, at 9:51 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 08:16:47AM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 2
On 15-Nov-13, at 9:51 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 08:16:47AM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 11:25 -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 00:49 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
2013-11-12 Jakub Jelinek
* sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platf
On Fri, 2013-11-15 at 15:51 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 08:16:47AM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > Ok, Dave reported in PR59009 that my last patch still left a few build
> > problems on HPPA. Dave tested the patch below and confirmed this cleans
>
> How can there be prob
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 08:16:47AM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 11:25 -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 00:49 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > 2013-11-12 Jakub Jelinek
> > >
> > > * sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cc: Temporarily
>
On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 11:25 -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 00:49 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > 2013-11-12 Jakub Jelinek
> >
> > * sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cc: Temporarily
> > ifdef out almost the whole source.
> > * sanitizer_common/san
On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 16:42 -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 18:29 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:25:06AM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > > > * sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cc:
> > > > Temporarily
> > > > ifdef out
On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 18:29 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:25:06AM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > > * sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cc: Temporarily
> > > ifdef out almost the whole source.
> > > * sanitizer_common/sanitizer_common_syscalls.inc: Li
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:25:06AM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 00:49 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > 2013-11-12 Jakub Jelinek
> >
> > * sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cc: Temporarily
> > ifdef out almost the whole source.
> > * sanitizer_com
On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 00:49 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> 2013-11-12 Jakub Jelinek
>
> * sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cc: Temporarily
> ifdef out almost the whole source.
> * sanitizer_common/sanitizer_common_syscalls.inc: Likewise.
That helps, but as Pat
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Michael Meissner
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:45:54AM +0400, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
>> Many thanks, Jakub.
>>
>> I don't want to appear in this situation again.
>> Would you suggest a place to create a wiki page which would list all
>> required steps to te
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:45:54AM +0400, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
> Many thanks, Jakub.
>
> I don't want to appear in this situation again.
> Would you suggest a place to create a wiki page which would list all
> required steps to test libsanitizer?
>
> libsanitizer is (unfortunately) a very sys
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Michael Meissner
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 09:43:38AM -0800, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
>> or, alternatively, we can disable libsanitizer on PowerPC if the
>> PowerPC community does not care enough about it being healthy.
>
> I think there should be a global -
Many thanks, Jakub.
I don't want to appear in this situation again.
Would you suggest a place to create a wiki page which would list all
required steps to test libsanitizer?
libsanitizer is (unfortunately) a very system-dependent beast and our
upstream commits will break other platforms regularly
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:47:04AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 08:30:15PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Anyway, the following #ifdefs out tons of dead code and still builds just
> > fine, the only difference is that those symbols nothing really uses from
> > libasan/libt
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 08:30:15PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Anyway, the following #ifdefs out tons of dead code and still builds just
> fine, the only difference is that those symbols nothing really uses from
> libasan/libtsan are no longer exported, but nothing else changes.
Actually, ifdefi
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:34:48AM -0800, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:59:12AM -0800, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
> >> This is all dead code in gcc repo. This is why I am asking for any
> >> quick #ifdef.
> >> in clan
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:34:48AM -0800, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
> > Anyway, the following #ifdefs out tons of dead code and still builds just
>
> Thanks, that should work.
> I am really sorry I couldn't do it myself before -- just got back from travel.
So do you have some suggestion for #ifdef
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:59:12AM -0800, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
>> This is all dead code in gcc repo. This is why I am asking for any
>> quick #ifdef.
>> in clang repo this code is used by MemorySanitizer (and will be used
>> by asan/tsan
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:59:12AM -0800, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
> This is all dead code in gcc repo. This is why I am asking for any
> quick #ifdef.
> in clang repo this code is used by MemorySanitizer (and will be used
> by asan/tsan later).
I can't find how it is used in msan/ in the llvm rep
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:07:32AM -0800, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Michael Meissner
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 09:43:38AM -0800, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
>> >> or, alternatively, we can disab
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:07:32AM -0800, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Michael Meissner
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 09:43:38AM -0800, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
> >> or, alternatively, we can disable libsanitizer on PowerPC if the
> >> PowerPC community does
> If we revert the patch now, I will not be able to work on it again in
> nearest months, which means 4.9 will not get updated asan.
> How bad that is -- I don't know.
When you contribute patches, you should allocate enough time with your
employer to address any fall out. This problem likely affe
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:07:32AM -0800, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Michael Meissner
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 09:43:38AM -0800, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
> >> or, alternatively, we can disable libsanitizer on PowerPC if the
> >> PowerPC community does
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Michael Meissner
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 09:43:38AM -0800, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
>> or, alternatively, we can disable libsanitizer on PowerPC if the
>> PowerPC community does not care enough about it being healthy.
>
> I think there should be a global
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 09:43:38AM -0800, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
> or, alternatively, we can disable libsanitizer on PowerPC if the
> PowerPC community does not care enough about it being healthy.
I think there should be a global --enable-libsanitizer or whatever option that
would allow people t
or, alternatively, we can disable libsanitizer on PowerPC if the
PowerPC community does not care enough about it being healthy.
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
> [plain text]
> So far I was not able to reproduce the compilation failure -- and I am
> asking someone from t
[plain text]
So far I was not able to reproduce the compilation failure -- and I am
asking someone from the PowerPC side to help.
Please apply any minimal #ifdef patch to
sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cc to make it compile, while keeping
x86_64 tests pass.
If we revert the patch now, I will not
It has been a week since the libsanitizer patches were checked in, which broke
the PowerPC64 Linux system along with others (PR 59009 for powerpc). Please
revert these patches while you are working on proper fixes for all of the hosts
and targets.
Quoting from the GCC development plan:
Patch Rev
30 matches
Mail list logo
