On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:03:27PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> Then the test would be run once without ASAN_DIE_IF in environment (or =0),
>> that would produce output full of
>> EXPECT_DEATH1 AddressSanitizer:.*heap-use-after-free EXPECT_DEATHEND1
>> ...
>> which tcl could parse, and figure from it that it should run the test
>> again 156 or how many times, with ASAN_DIE_IF from 1 to 156, and at each
>> iteration try to match the output against the regexp for that iteration.
>> Then you'd essentially just have to tweak a few lines at the start of the
>> test, includes, first few lines in main and that would be it.
>
> That said, I find it very undesirable to put that many tests into one large
> one, especially if it triggers undefined behavior like:
> ATTRIBUTE_NO_ADDRESS_SAFETY_ANALYSIS
> static void NoAddressSafety() {
> char *foo = new char[10];
> Ident(foo)[10] = 0;
> delete [] foo;
> }
The behavior is undefined according to C++, but in the context of asan
build it is perfectly defined.
>
> TEST(AddressSanitizer, AttributeNoAddressSafetyTest) {
> Ident(NoAddressSafety)();
> }
>
> As soon as you corrupt malloc state, anything can happen. Things like
> this should be verified by a compile only test that no instrumentation calls
> have been added.
In LLVM we have such tests too.
--kcc
>
> Looking at the test, there aren't just EXPECT_DEATH kinds of tests, and
> running everything not guarded with EXPECT_DEATH macro many times might
> be too expensive. So perhaps it could run each TEST as a separate process,
> by first just printing all test names that sould be run, then running
> them one by one by asking for it in env, and for tests that would print
> EPXECT_DEATHX ... EXPECT_DEATHENDX run that particular test again with
> the requested EXPECT_DEATH counter.
> Or run everything except EXPECT_DEATH macros first, and in EXPECT_DEATH
> printouts print not just some counter, but also name of the current test,
> and then when rerunning for some particular EXPECT_DEATH just run the
> corresponding TEST and not all others. Still, it is a couple of dozens
> of lines in the test (defining the macros) and a little more than that
> in tcl.
>
> Jakub
