I have tried Jakub patch listed in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58543.
It works for my env.
Thanks.
2013/10/29 Jean Lee :
> Thanks. I will try Jakub patch listed in
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58543.
>
> 2013/10/29 Yury Gribov :
>>> "copy_to_mode_reg (Pmode, XEXP
Thanks. I will try Jakub patch listed in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58543.
2013/10/29 Yury Gribov :
>> "copy_to_mode_reg (Pmode, XEXP (shadow_mem, 0))" would be more direct.
>> But it looks good to me with that change FWIW.
>
> Thanks, Richard. Note that Jakub has proposed an opti
> "copy_to_mode_reg (Pmode, XEXP (shadow_mem, 0))" would be more direct.
> But it looks good to me with that change FWIW.
Thanks, Richard. Note that Jakub has proposed an optimized patch on
gcc-patches ML (in Re: [PATCH] Invalid unpoisoning of stack redzones on
ARM).
-Y
Yury Gribov writes:
> diff --git a/gcc/asan.c b/gcc/asan.c
> index 32f1837..acb00ea 100644
> --- a/gcc/asan.c
> +++ b/gcc/asan.c
> @@ -895,7 +895,7 @@ asan_clear_shadow (rtx shadow_mem, HOST_WIDE_INT len)
>
>gcc_assert ((len & 3) == 0);
>top_label = gen_label_rtx ();
> - addr = force_re
> Hi Yury, try to use the patch for asan.c to see if it solve your problem.
I tried but unfortunately it did not work for me. Could you try the
patch suggested in http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58543
(I've attached it) when you have time? This was verified against gcc
testsuite on
Hi Yury, try to use the patch for asan.c to see if it solve your problem.
pinskia, thank you. I compiled asan with libssp which mean the stack grows down.
I disassembled the compiled code and debuged the bin time to time
before I thought it was a bug.early this month.
I tried GCC 4.8.1 and GCC 4.9
> Yes, we do see this error on ARM.
Here is another instance of the same bug:
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.debugging.address-sanitizer/531
> Full description and suggested patch are available at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58543
> I'm curious whether suggested patch
> Does someone use addresssanitizer in other platform (i386/x64/arm/ppc)
> suffer this problem?
Hi Jean,
Yes, we do see this error on ARM. Full description and suggested patch
are available at http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58543
I'm curious whether suggested patch is going to wor
> On Oct 28, 2013, at 2:58 AM, Jean Lee wrote:
>
> Addresssanitizer was added to GCC since GCC 4.8, and you should
> compile with the flag "-fsanitize=address". Moreover, the
> addresssanitizer support for MIPS is not implemented in offical GCC.
Yes I know that. I saying we back ported asan su
Addresssanitizer was added to GCC since GCC 4.8, and you should
compile with the flag "-fsanitize=address". Moreover, the
addresssanitizer support for MIPS is not implemented in offical GCC.
Does someone use addresssanitizer in other platform (i386/x64/arm/ppc)
suffer this problem?
Thanks,
Jean L
> On Oct 28, 2013, at 1:36 AM, Jean Lee wrote:
>
> My port of addresssanitizer is based on GCC 4.8.1.
> I modify "asan_emit_stack_protection" function in gcc/asan.c for the
> following reason:
> Sometimes, the stack variable size > 32 Bytes, and after asan
> generates code to poison the shadow b
My port of addresssanitizer is based on GCC 4.8.1.
I modify "asan_emit_stack_protection" function in gcc/asan.c for the
following reason:
Sometimes, the stack variable size > 32 Bytes, and after asan
generates code to poison the shadow buffer, it does clear some shadow
buffer but not all before fu
12 matches
Mail list logo