On 10/19/17, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 02:07:24PM +0300, Maxim Ostapenko wrote: >> > Is the patch (the merge + this incremental) ok for trunk? >> >> I think the patch is OK, just wondering about two things: > > Richi just approved the patch on IRC, so I'll commit, then we can deal with > follow-ups. > >> 1) We have a bunch of GCC local patches, did you include them into a >> cumulative patch (I guess yes)? > > I have done some verification today, diff from upstream r285547 to > unpatched > GCC (with the LLVM Compiler infrastructure two liners removed), attached > P1, > and diff from upstream r315899 to patched GCC (again, two liners removed), > attached P2 and went through the changes in P1 and verified that except for > the ubsan backwards compatibility we had that can't work anymore everything > else was upstreamed, or remained in P2. So P2 is the current diff from > upstream, with the sanitizer_common/sanitizer_symbolizer_libbacktrace.cc > changes now filed upstream. > >> 2) Upstream has enabled LSan for x86 and ARM, is it worth to enable them >> in GCC too? > > Maybe, feel free to post patches. For LSan we need to split off > lsan_preinit > out of liblsan and link it into executables, will handle it next (there is > a PR about it, just wanted to wait until the merge is in). >
Just for reference, the PR number is bug 82595 btw, for anyone reading who isn't already on it: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82595 > Jakub >
