Jeff Law wrote:
> It looks like Jakub took care of it.
True.
On 12/03/13 03:08, Yury Gribov wrote:
> The situation hasn't changed in the last four days.
Thanks. Do you think you can check the patch in question?
It looks like Jakub took care of it.
jeff
> The situation hasn't changed in the last four days.
Thanks. Do you think you can check the patch in question?
-Y
Jeff Law writes:
> On 12/01/13 23:12, Yury Gribov wrote:
>> > This is causing all the tests being run on all targets,
>> > even if libsanitizer is not supported,
>> > most of them failing due to link errors.
>>
>> Thanks for the info and sorry about this. I should probably check
>> non-sanitiz
eugeni.stepa...@gmail.com, VandeVondele Joost
, Evgeny Gavrin ,
Viacheslav Garbuzov
Subject: Re: [PING^2] [PATCH] PR59063
On 12/03/2013 09:01 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 12/01/13 23:12, Yury Gribov wrote:
> This is causing all the tests being run on all targets,
> even if libsanitizer is not su
On 12/01/13 23:12, Yury Gribov wrote:
> This is causing all the tests being run on all targets,
> even if libsanitizer is not supported,
> most of them failing due to link errors.
Thanks for the info and sorry about this. I should probably check
non-sanitized platforms as well before commitin
: Re: [PING^2] [PATCH] PR59063
On 12/02/2013 10:12 AM, Yury Gribov wrote:
> This is causing all the tests being run on all targets,
> even if libsanitizer is not supported,
> most of them failing due to link errors.
Thanks for the info and sorry about this. I should probably check
non-
> This is causing all the tests being run on all targets,
> even if libsanitizer is not supported,
> most of them failing due to link errors.
Thanks for the info and sorry about this. I should probably check
non-sanitized platforms as well before commiting patches. Does the
attached patch make
>>> I am checking in this as an obvious fix. Tested
>>> on Linux/x86.
>>>
>>> H.J.
>>
>> I think bootstrap-asan.mk should also be updated.
>>
>>> H.J.
>
> I checked in this as an obvious fix. Tested on Linux/x86-64.
>
> H.J.
Thanks HJ. I wonder how this managed to pass tests here without your
Yury Gribov writes:
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/asan-dg.exp b/gcc/testsuite/lib/asan-dg.exp
> index e0bf2da..06122e2 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/asan-dg.exp
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/asan-dg.exp
> @@ -39,9 +39,9 @@ proc asan_link_flags { paths } {
> set shlib_ext [get_shlib_extensi
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 9:48 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 9:06 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 9:02 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 8:47 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 4:31 AM, Yury Gribov wrote:
>> Please fix up formatting
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 9:06 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 9:02 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 8:47 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 4:31 AM, Yury Gribov wrote:
> Please fix up formatting
> Also, isn't libsanitizer/libsanitizer.spec.in mi
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 9:02 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 8:47 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 4:31 AM, Yury Gribov wrote:
Please fix up formatting
>>>
Also, isn't libsanitizer/libsanitizer.spec.in missing from the patch?
Ok with that fixed.
>>>
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 8:47 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 4:31 AM, Yury Gribov wrote:
>>> Please fix up formatting
>>
>>> Also, isn't libsanitizer/libsanitizer.spec.in missing from the patch?
>>>
>>> Ok with that fixed.
>>
>> Thanks, r205524
>>
>
> On Linux/x86, I got
>
> FAIL: c
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 4:31 AM, Yury Gribov wrote:
>> Please fix up formatting
>
>> Also, isn't libsanitizer/libsanitizer.spec.in missing from the patch?
>>
>> Ok with that fixed.
>
> Thanks, r205524
>
On Linux/x86, I got
FAIL: c-c++-common/asan/pr59063-2.c -O0 (test for excess errors)
FAIL:
> Please fix up formatting
> Also, isn't libsanitizer/libsanitizer.spec.in missing from the patch?
>
> Ok with that fixed.
Thanks, r205524
-Y
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 02:58:47PM +0400, Yury Gribov wrote:
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/asan-dg.exp
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/asan-dg.exp
> @@ -39,9 +39,9 @@ proc asan_link_flags { paths } {
> set shlib_ext [get_shlib_extension]
>
> if { $gccpath != "" } {
> + append flags " -B${gc
>>> Perhaps it is time for libsanitizer.spec filled in during
>> configure of libsanitizer
>> Draft patch is attached, let's see if I understood your
> ...
> my preference perhaps would be not to put
> link_sanitizer into the Makefile*/libsanitizer.spec/gcc.c at all,
> instead use it solely as con
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 05:52:30PM +0400, Yury Gribov wrote:
> > Perhaps it is time for libsanitizer.spec filled in during
> configure of libsanitizer
> > that the spec would source in?
>
> Draft patch is attached, let's see if I understood your
> recommendation correctly. Some obvious quirks:
> 1
>>> This patch is supposed to fix PR59063
(http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59063).
>>
>> This is fine. I'm assuming that the minor changes to the sanitizer
libraries are in bits that are maintained within GCC rather than
upstream in LLVM. Right?
>
> Yes. This patch only touches A
>> This patch is supposed to fix PR59063
(http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59063).
>
> This is fine. I'm assuming that the minor changes to the sanitizer
libraries are in bits that are maintained within GCC rather than
upstream in LLVM. Right?
Yes. This patch only touches Autotoo
On 11/26/13 23:36, Yury Gribov wrote:
> This patch is supposed to fix PR59063
(http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59063).
>
> The original bug results from libasan providing clock_gettime wrapper
and then trying to call the "real" clock_gettime.
> The "real" symbol is supposed to com
> I don't like the unconditional -lrt added for -static-lib*san (note,
you need it for both -static-lib{a,t}san).
Makes sense.
> Perhaps it is time for libsanitizer.spec filled in during configure
of libsanitizer
> that the spec would source in?
Draft patch is attached, let's see if I unders
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 10:36:41AM +0400, Yury Gribov wrote:
> > This patch is supposed to fix PR59063
> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59063).
> >
> > The original bug results from libasan providing clock_gettime
> wrapper and then trying to call the "real" clock_gettime.
> > The "re
> This patch is supposed to fix PR59063
(http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59063).
>
> The original bug results from libasan providing clock_gettime wrapper
and then trying to call the "real" clock_gettime.
> The "real" symbol is supposed to come from librt.so which was not
necessaril
25 matches
Mail list logo
