On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Andrew Pinski <pins...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Konstantin Serebryany > <konstantin.s.serebry...@gmail.com> 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_64 is defined even for x32.
Sure, this is why I suggest to use #if defined x86_64 instead of #if __WORDSIZE == 64 || defined __x86_64__ >> And it is the only one > currently supported does not mean there will be more in the future. I hope there will be more, this is why #if defined x86_64 might be preferable -- the code will explicitly be x86_64-specific and we'll know what to fix. ?? --kcc > > Thanks, > Andrew Pinski > >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 1:53 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Konstantin Serebryany >>> <konstantin.s.serebry...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> 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 <do...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>>> > Diego Novillo <dnovi...@google.com> 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. README.gcc just says where the >>>>>> > sources the 'upstream' project is. >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> What is the plan to add GCC specific support: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55291 >>>>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55292 >>>>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55304 >>>>>> >>>>>> and >>>>>> >>>>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg00967.html >>>>> >>>>> CCing Wei, I don't know the details about the import. To me it looks like >>>>> that most or all of the libsanitizer/ level files (and >>>>> libsanitizer/*/Makefile.{am,in}) don't originate from >>>>> llvm/projects/compiler-rt/lib , so they should be owned by GCC and thus >>>>> should be changed to support multilibs, use the same libtool/autoconf/etc. >>>>> versions as rest of gcc etc. >>>> >>>> >>>> Correct. Whatever happens to Makefile, configure and other non-.{cc,h} >>>> files is a purely GCC thing. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> For changes to the files actually imported from LLVM I guess it depends on >>>>> if google is going to accept such changes in the LLVM upstream. >>>> >>>> Yes, we are willing to support any changes that make libasan support >>>> more targets. >>>> We would prefer all patches to go through LLVM first, and then ported >>>> to GCC by copying files verbatim >>>> This is the only way we can cope with the two versions. >>>> (Wei, we will need the exact details for doing this in the README file) >>>> >>> >>> Could someone please check this patch: >>> >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg00951.html >>> >>> into upstream? >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> H.J.
