https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #39 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Wed Mar 13 09:19:25 2019
New Revision: 269641
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269641&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/80953
Merge from LLVM revision 355980
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #38 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Wed Mar 13 09:15:02 2019
New Revision: 269640
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269640&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/80953
Merge from LLVM revision 355979
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #37 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Wed Mar 13 09:11:46 2019
New Revision: 269639
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269639&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/80953
Merge from LLVM revision 355978
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #36 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Wed Mar 13 09:05:43 2019
New Revision: 269638
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269638&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR sanitizer/80953
Merge from LLVM revision 355965
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #35 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Right: 64-bit Solaris/SPARC uses the full 64-bit address space:
>
> https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E37838_01/html/E66175/advanced-2.
> html#SSFDGadvanced-5
>
> The gap between the low and high parts cannot b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #34 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #33 from Eric Botcazou ---
>> I found that enabling it causes quite a number of regressions. Here's
>> the list that I've just recreated:
[...]
>> Maybe this goes away wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #33 from Eric Botcazou ---
> I found that enabling it causes quite a number of regressions. Here's
> the list that I've just recreated:
>
> +FAIL: c-c++-common/asan/heap-overflow-1.c -O0 output pattern test
> +FAIL: c-c++-common/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #32 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #31 from Eric Botcazou ---
>> I think it is important to find out why there are those differences in line
>> numbers. Is libbacktrace broken on Solaris, or not used at al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #31 from Eric Botcazou ---
> I think it is important to find out why there are those differences in line
> numbers. Is libbacktrace broken on Solaris, or not used at all, something
> different?
The libsanitizer does its private unwi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #30 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Is already included in sol2.h (ASAN_CC1_SPEC).
OK. Then unwind info is needed in the epilogue?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #29 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #28 from Eric Botcazou ---
[...]
>> -fno-delayed-branch made no difference.
>
> What about -fasynchronous-unwind-tables?
Is already included in sol2.h (ASAN_CC1_SPEC).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #28 from Eric Botcazou ---
> For a quick check, I just tried it on
> c-c++-common/asan/heap-overflow-1.c at -O0
>
> #0 0x11258 in main
> /vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/asan/heap-overflow-1.
> c:21
>
> vs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #27 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Try -fno-delayed-branch then? The debug info and unwind info for delayed
> slots
> isn't really well defined...
For a quick check, I just t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Try -fno-delayed-branch then? The debug info and unwind info for delayed slots
isn't really well defined...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #25 from Eric Botcazou ---
> It is definitely used, same as on Solaris/x86 where this issue doesn't
> occur.
Maybe related to delay slots then.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #24 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #22 from Eric Botcazou ---
>> I think it is important to find out why there are those differences in line
>> numbers. Is libbacktrace broken on Solaris, or not used at al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #23 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> I think it is important to find out why there are those differences in line
> numbers. Is libbacktrace broken on Solaris, or not used at all,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #22 from Eric Botcazou ---
> I think it is important to find out why there are those differences in line
> numbers. Is libbacktrace broken on Solaris, or not used at all, something
> different?
AFAICS they only occur with optimizati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think it is important to find out why there are those differences in line
numbers. Is libbacktrace broken on Solaris, or not used at all, something
different?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #20 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #18 from Eric Botcazou ---
> (> These are often just off-by-one errors in the line numbers; I believe I
>> have a patch around somewhere to fix at least some of those...
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #19 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 45163
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45163&action=edit
Preliminary patch for regular sparc output patter test failures
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #18 from Eric Botcazou ---
(> These are often just off-by-one errors in the line numbers; I believe I
> have a patch around somewhere to fix at least some of those...
OK, I see, a bit annoying in the test results though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #17 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #15 from Eric Botcazou ---
>> I only have:
[...]
>> as execution test failures, but I have a bunch of output pattern test
>> failures.
>
> Rainer, do you also have a slew
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #16 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou ---
>> The only asan execution failures I see on Solaris 11/SPARC are
[...]
> I only have:
>
> c-c++-common/asan/pointer-compare-1.c
> c-c++-common/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #15 from Eric Botcazou ---
> I only have:
>
> c-c++-common/asan/pointer-compare-1.c
> c-c++-common/asan/pointer-compare-2.c
> c-c++-common/asan/pointer-subtract-1.c
> c-c++-common/asan/pointer-subtract-2.c
> g++.dg/asan/function-argu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou ---
> The only asan execution failures I see on Solaris 11/SPARC are
>
> c-c++-common/asan/pointer-compare-1.c
> c-c++-common/asan/pointer-compare-2.c
> c-c++-common/asan/pointer-subtract-1.c
> c-c++-c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #13 from Eric Botcazou ---
> This is weird: this test PASSes for me on Solaris 11.3, 11.4 and 11.5,
> both 32 and 64-bit, as and gas.
A more useful backtrace just before the crash:
(gdb) bt
#0 0xfe8d9080 in free ()
from /home/bo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ---
> I have a bunch of sanitizer failures on SPARC/Solaris 11.3:
[...]
This is weird: this test PASSes for me on Solaris 11.3, 11.4 and 11.5,
both
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
URL|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #9 from Rainer Orth ---
Author: ro
Date: Tue Nov 6 10:49:34 2018
New Revision: 265837
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265837&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Enable libsanitizer on Solaris (PR sanitizer/80953)
gcc:
PR sa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #8 from Rainer Orth ---
Author: ro
Date: Tue Nov 6 10:42:05 2018
New Revision: 265836
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265836&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Cherry-pick Solaris sanitizer fixes (PR sanitizer/80953)
PR sanitizer/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #6 from Maxim Ostapenko ---
[...]
> For ODR violation bug we have a local patch in libsanitizer. Could you check
> whether you applied all local patches listed in libsaniti
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
Maxim Ostapenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m.ostapenko at samsung dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #5 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 41484
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41484&action=edit
Merge libsanitizer from compiler-rt r304722
I've now completed a merge of llvm r304722 into gcc trunk libsanitize
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #4 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 41453
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41453&action=edit
Add SPARC ASan support in GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #3 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 41452
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41452&action=edit
Adapt c-c++-common/ubsan/float-cast-overflow-1.c for Solaris
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #2 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 41451
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41451&action=edit
Basic libsanitizer Solaris support: x86 GCC side
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80953
--- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth ---
Created attachment 41450
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41450&action=edit
Basic libsanitizer Solaris support
39 matches
Mail list logo
