iii added inline comments.
================ Comment at: compiler-rt/lib/tsan/rtl/tsan_platform_posix.cpp:123 +#if defined(__s390x__) + ProtectRange(HiAppMemEnd(), 0xfffffffffffff000ull); +#endif ---------------- uweigand wrote: > Did you test this on older kernels without 5-level page table support? I > believe the allocation / mprotect may fail on those ... No, not really. Would it make sense to probe here? E.g. first try 0xfffffffffffff000, then 0x20000000000000. Or is there a way to query user_addr_max() / TASK_SIZE_MAX / TASK_SIZE? ================ Comment at: compiler-rt/lib/tsan/rtl/tsan_rtl_s390x.S:22 + CFI_REL_OFFSET(%r2, R2_REL_OFFSET) + CFI_REL_OFFSET(%r3, R3_REL_OFFSET) + stmg %r14, %r15, R14_REL_OFFSET(%r15) ---------------- uweigand wrote: > Do we need CFI for r2/r3 ? Those are call-clobbered any cannot be unwound > normally anyway ... I'm not quite sure, but glibc does this (e.g. in sysdeps/s390/s390-64/dl-trampoline.h), so I figured I'll do this here as well just in case. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D105629/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D105629 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
