On 04/20/2015 09:23 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 04/19/2015 07:48 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The attached patch resolves the failures in a number of address
sanitizer tests on powerpc64*-*-*-* discussed in bug 65479 (the
failures in c-c++-common/asan/swapcontext-test-1.c reported in
pr65643 remain unresolved).
The patch has been tested on powerpc64*-*-*-* and x86_64 with
no regressions.
Is this okay for trunk? For 5.1?
Martin
gcc-65479.patch
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog b/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
index b4052ef..18eede3 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,12 @@
+2015-04-19 Martin Sebor<mse...@redhat.com>
+
+ PR sanitizer/65479
+ * gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/asan/misalign-1.c [powerpc*-*-*-*]:
+ Use -fno-omit-frame-pointer. Adjust line numbers and expect exact
+ matches.
+ * gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/asan/misalign-2.c: Ditto.
+ * gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/asan/null-deref-1.c: Ditto.
So the ChangeLog doesn't match the patch. The changelog references
"-fno-omit-frame-pointer", but in the patch you actually add
"-fasynchronous-unwind-tables".
I also wonder if other targets need -fasynchronous-unwind-tables and
whether or not we should just add it unconditionally.
Perhaps enable unwind tables in GCC spec if -fsanitize=address is
present? Sanitizer backtraces typically won't work without unwind tables
anyway so IMHO this makes sense.
BTW why do we need asynchronous tables? Wouldn't simple -funwind-tables
be enough?
-Y
