Re: [PATCH 1/7] Libsanitizer merge from upstream r249633.

2015-10-16 Thread Renato Golin
On 16 October 2015 at 14:59, Maxim Ostapenko wrote: > Yeah, thanks. Just wondering if I should step back until they are resolved > upstream or we can have another merge in the future (stage3 is coming ...)? Well, right now, the support is patchy, experimental, but it's reasonably stable. From the

Re: [PATCH 1/7] Libsanitizer merge from upstream r249633.

2015-10-16 Thread Renato Golin
On 14 October 2015 at 19:38, Renato Golin wrote: > On 14 October 2015 at 19:21, Evgenii Stepanov > wrote: >> Wait. As Jakub correctly pointed out in the other thread, there is no >> obvious reason why there could not be a single shadow offset value >> that would wor

Re: [PATCH 1/7] Libsanitizer merge from upstream r249633.

2015-10-15 Thread Renato Golin
On 15 October 2015 at 10:21, wrote: > So in summary just enable 48 bit va support in the upstream kernel right now > and not needed to test on thunderx. So please enable 48 bit va in the kernel. > It is supported on a kernel that supports juno, apm and amd processors. Hi Andrew, I'm sorry but

Re: [PATCH 1/7] Libsanitizer merge from upstream r249633.

2015-10-15 Thread Renato Golin
On 15 October 2015 at 08:29, Yury Gribov wrote: > Do you have any estimation for when full AArch64 support is ready in LLVM? > If it's still months away, I wonder if we may want to enable at least > current (partial) support for non-Thunder users. Hi Yury, Unfortunately, no. Basic support is the

Re: [PATCH 1/7] Libsanitizer merge from upstream r249633.

2015-10-14 Thread Renato Golin
On 14 October 2015 at 20:00, Andrew Pinski wrote: > Then until that happens I think we should disable asan and tsan for > AARCH64 for GCC. I can't comment on that, but we'll continue running the tests on our side on both 39 and 42 VMA configurations, to make sure we don't regress until we actuall

Re: [PATCH 1/7] Libsanitizer merge from upstream r249633.

2015-10-14 Thread Renato Golin
On 14 October 2015 at 19:21, Evgenii Stepanov wrote: > Wait. As Jakub correctly pointed out in the other thread, there is no > obvious reason why there could not be a single shadow offset value > that would work for all 3 possible VMA settings. I suggest figuring > this out first. We are. cheers