On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 08:47:41AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote: >> > I believe this is a case where the GCC project gets more benefit from >> > libsanitizer than libsanitizer gets from being part of the GCC >> > project. We should work with the libsanitizer developers to make this >> > work, not just push everything back on them. >> > >> >> I think libsanitizer should be disabled automatically if kernel or glibc are >> too old. > > For very old I agree, I just strongly disagree with saying that anything > older than a year and half is too old. > So, as very old and unsupportable I'd probably consider e.g. Linux kernels > without futex support, libsanitizer apparently uses those in various places > and doesn't have a fallback. The question is how to do that though, because > libraries are now disabled through lib*/configure.tgt UNSUPPORTED=1, and > that is sourced in by toplevel configure, so any configure checks would need > to be in toplevel configure. Or of course, we could in those cases > configure the libsanitizer directory, but just decide not to build anything > in there. >
The kernel and glibc check should be done at the toplevel. So what are the minimum kernel and glibc we want to support? -- H.J.
