+ eugeni.stepanov
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:50 PM, Yury Gribov wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've recently noticed that GCC generates suboptimal code for Asan on ARM
>> targets. E.g. for a 4-byte memory access check
>>
>> (shadow_val != 0)
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 7:32 AM, Maxim Ostapenko
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At this moment, most of GCC builtin memory functions (for example strcpy,
> stpcpy, wcpcpy, strdup, etc) are not instrumented by GCC, however some of
> them are rather dangerous. If GCC inlines these builtin functions, we will
> miss
Correct, you can run tests from llvm tree with any compiler.
https://code.google.com/p/address-sanitizer/wiki/AddressSanitizerTestSuite
Note that lsan does not depend on the compiler, it is a library-only feature.
--kcc
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Yury Gribov wrote:
> On 09/30/2014 07:15 P
[resending in plain text mode; arghh]
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Konstantin Serebryany
wrote:
> Hi Christophe,
>
> We would love to see the aarch64-specific changes in upstream repo
> (see https://code.google.com/p/address-sanitizer/wiki/HowToBuild).
> Once the changes are
[resending text-only]
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Konstantin Serebryany
wrote:
> Unfortunately, we are not able to keep up with the old kernels.
> Two possible ways to go:
> - disable libsanitizer on older kernels
> - someone needs to work with us in upstream repository (l
[text-only]
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 10:34 PM, FX wrote:
>> Unfortunately, we are not able to keep up with the old kernels.
>> Two possible ways to go:
>> - disable libsanitizer on older kernels
>> - someone needs to work with us in upstream repository (llvm) to keep the
>> code old-kernel-comp
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:34:41AM +0400, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 10:34 PM, FX wrote:
>>
>> > > Unfortunately, we are not able to keep up with the old kernels.
>> > > Two possible ways to go:
>> > > - disable li
> As my bugreport is being ignored it would help if one ouf our
Sorry. Which one?
> partners (hint! hint!) would raise this issue via the appropriate
> channel ;)
>
> Richard.
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 12:47:17PM +0100, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
>> > >>> Looks like another issue for the libsanitizer maintainers.
>> > >>
>> > >> I've been doing bootstraps, but didn't see this because the
>> > >> kernel header linux/vt.h u
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Konstantin Serebryany
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 12:47:17PM +0100, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
>>> > >>> Looks like another issue for the libsanitizer maintainers.
>
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 04:19:26PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
>> > As my bugreport is being ignored it would help if one ouf our
>>
>> Sorry. Which one?
>
> I believe richi meant
> https://bugzilla.
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 7:00 PM, FX wrote:
>> /users/charlet/fsf/trunk/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_linux.cc:
>> Assembler messages:
>> /users/charlet/fsf/trunk/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_linux.cc:821:
>> Error: .cfi_endproc without corresponding .cfi_startproc
>> :21485:
FTR, LLVM build system takes 6 seconds to build asan&tsan run-time
(well, I have a good machine).
% date; ninja libclang_rt.asan-x86_64.a libclang_rt.asan-i386.a
libclang_rt.tsan-x86_64.a; date
Tue Dec 17 08:34:14 MSK 2013
[126/126] Linking CXX static library
lib/clang/3.5/lib/linux/libclang_rt.tsa
Hi Uros,
When we have a code like X++ (either RMW, or a regular increment) it
is enough for asan to instrument it just once (either as a read or a
write, doesn't matter).
LLVM implementation does this optimization for regular increments,
while GCC does not (yet).
% cat inc.cc
void foo(int *a) {
Hi Christophe,
Are you talking about ARM Linux?
It will be easier for us (asan developers) to fix this upstream first.
Could you please file a bug at https://code.google.com/p/address-sanitizer/ ?
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am working on enabing libsanit
Hi Jeffrey,
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> This came up on another list (Automake). I'm going to quote Bob
> Friesenhahn directly since my paraphrase won't do him justice:
>
> "I am curious if this ThreadSanitizer extension will work with the
> normal build o
16 matches
Mail list logo
