Hi,
I've noticed that gcc includes a msan_interface.h file, and I'm wondering if
this implies that memory sanitizer is already part of gcc. If not, are there
plans to port this useful looking tool to gcc during the current stage 1 ?
Cheers,
Joost
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 11:30 AM, VandeVondele Joost
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've noticed that gcc includes a msan_interface.h file, and I'm wondering if
> this implies that memory sanitizer is already part of gcc. If not, are there
> plans to port this useful looking tool to gcc during the current sta
Hi,
When Jason recently committed his fix for PR58678, I noticed that the
newly introduced test was failing on arm-linux target.
This is because testglue.o contains relocations incompatible with
-shared which is used in the testcase.
I am preparing a testsuite patch to fix that, but I am wonderi
[as text for real this time]
Sanitizer compiler module sizes in LLVM (in lines):
1823 AddressSanitizer.cpp
2780 MemorySanitizer.cpp
564 ThreadSanitizer.cpp
Also note, that msan is the hardest to deploy among others sanitizers
because it requires to compile *everything*,
including libc++/libs
> it was certainly worth it.
since I see msan as a kind of valgrind replacement (similar functionality, but
~10x the speed, partially at the cost of more difficult deployment), I did a
quick search in gcc bugzilla. 982 PRs mention valgrind, so such functionality
is clearly heavily used.
It may be helpful to document the following in msan's official page:
1) success stories (chrome land?)
2) runtime overhead comparison with valgrind
David
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
> [as text for real this time]
> Sanitizer compiler module sizes in LLVM (in lines):
+Evgeniy
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> It may be helpful to document the following in msan's official page:
> 1) success stories (chrome land?)
The page https://code.google.com/p/memory-sanitizer/wiki/FoundBugs
may need some updates and it should be linked from
https
On 10/01/2014 06:21 PM, VandeVondele Joost wrote:
it was certainly worth it.
since I see msan as a kind of valgrind replacement (similar functionality, but
~10x the speed, partially at the cost of more difficult deployment), I did a
quick search in gcc bugzilla. 982 PRs mention valgrind, so
On 10/01/2014 08:00 PM, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
-gcc folks.
Why not use clang then?
It offers many more nice features.
What's the Fortran front-end called for clang (or do you really think we
are going to write Weather Forecasting codes in C :-) )
Kind regards,
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 10:
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Toon Moene wrote:
> On 10/01/2014 08:00 PM, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
>>
>> -gcc folks.
>>
>> Why not use clang then?
>> It offers many more nice features.
>
>
> What's the Fortran front-end called for clang (or do you really think we are
> going to write Weather Fo
I have a question about MULTILIB_OSDIRNAMES and about specifying a
mapping in this variable.
According to fragments.texi:
When it is a set of mappings of the form @var{gccdir}=@var{osdir},
the left side gives the GCC convention and the right gives the
equivalent OS defined location.
But w
Snapshot gcc-4.9-20141001 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.9-20141001/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.9 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
>
> I have a question about MULTILIB_OSDIRNAMES and about specifying a
> mapping in this variable.
>
> According to fragments.texi:
>
> When it is a set of mappings of the form @var{gccdir}=@var{osdir},
> the left side gives the GCC conventio
Hi All,
I am looking at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62254.
Here, in arm_reload_in, for REG_P (ref) which has true_regnum (ref) ==
-1, both reg_equiv_mem (REG_P (ref)) and reg_equiv_address (REG_P
(ref)) are NULL. Can this happen?
Thanks,
Kugan
14 matches
Mail list logo
