On 16 November 2017 at 13:25, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
> Hi Christophe,
>
> On 13/11/17 15:47, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>
>> On 30 October 2017 at 16:21, Maxim Ostapenko
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 30/10/17 17:08, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 30/10/2017 11:12, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
>
> Hi,
Hi Christophe,
On 13/11/17 15:47, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 30 October 2017 at 16:21, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
On 30/10/17 17:08, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 30/10/2017 11:12, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
Hi,
sorry for the late response.
On 20/10/17 13:45, Christophe Lyon wrote:
Hi,
On 19 October
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 06:40:32PM +0300, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
> > But on the upstream sanitizer repo,
> > sanitizer_common/sanitizer_syscall_linux_arm.inc was added on Nov 8th,
> > and also checks for retval >= -4095, hence handling the clone() error
> > gracefully. So... can we merge again our
Hi,
On 13/11/17 15:47, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 30 October 2017 at 16:21, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
On 30/10/17 17:08, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 30/10/2017 11:12, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
Hi,
sorry for the late response.
On 20/10/17 13:45, Christophe Lyon wrote:
Hi,
On 19 October 2017 at 13:
On 30 October 2017 at 16:21, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
> On 30/10/17 17:08, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>
>> On 30/10/2017 11:12, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> sorry for the late response.
>>>
>>> On 20/10/17 13:45, Christophe Lyon wrote:
Hi,
On 19 October 2017 at 13:17,
On 30/10/2017 16:54, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
On 30/10/17 18:46, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 30/10/2017 16:21, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
On 30/10/17 17:08, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 30/10/2017 11:12, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
Hi,
sorry for the late response.
On 20/10/17 13:45, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 30/10/17 18:46, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 30/10/2017 16:21, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
On 30/10/17 17:08, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 30/10/2017 11:12, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
Hi,
sorry for the late response.
On 20/10/17 13:45, Christophe Lyon wrote:
Hi,
On 19 October 2017 at 13:17, Jakub Jeli
On 30/10/2017 16:21, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
On 30/10/17 17:08, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 30/10/2017 11:12, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
Hi,
sorry for the late response.
On 20/10/17 13:45, Christophe Lyon wrote:
Hi,
On 19 October 2017 at 13:17, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 02:07:
On 30/10/17 17:08, Christophe Lyon wrote:
On 30/10/2017 11:12, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
Hi,
sorry for the late response.
On 20/10/17 13:45, Christophe Lyon wrote:
Hi,
On 19 October 2017 at 13:17, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 02:07:24PM +0300, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
Is the pa
On 30/10/2017 11:12, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
Hi,
sorry for the late response.
On 20/10/17 13:45, Christophe Lyon wrote:
Hi,
On 19 October 2017 at 13:17, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 02:07:24PM +0300, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
Is the patch (the merge + this incremental) ok for t
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 01:12:47PM +0300, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
> I've caught the same error on my Arndale board. The issue seems to be quite
> obvious: after merge, ASan requires globals array to be aligned by shadow
> granularity.
> This trivial patch seems to fix the issue. Could you check it o
Hi,
sorry for the late response.
On 20/10/17 13:45, Christophe Lyon wrote:
Hi,
On 19 October 2017 at 13:17, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 02:07:24PM +0300, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
Is the patch (the merge + this incremental) ok for trunk?
I think the patch is OK, just wonderin
Hi,
On 19 October 2017 at 13:17, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 02:07:24PM +0300, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
>> > Is the patch (the merge + this incremental) ok for trunk?
>>
>> I think the patch is OK, just wondering about two things:
>
> Richi just approved the patch on IRC, so I'll
On 10/19/17, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 02:07:24PM +0300, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
>> > Is the patch (the merge + this incremental) ok for trunk?
>>
>> I think the patch is OK, just wondering about two things:
>
> Richi just approved the patch on IRC, so I'll commit, then we can
On 19.10.2017 13:17, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 02:07:24PM +0300, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
>>> Is the patch (the merge + this incremental) ok for trunk?
>>
>> I think the patch is OK, just wondering about two things:
>
> Richi just approved the patch on IRC, so I'll commit, then
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 02:07:24PM +0300, Maxim Ostapenko wrote:
> > Is the patch (the merge + this incremental) ok for trunk?
>
> I think the patch is OK, just wondering about two things:
Richi just approved the patch on IRC, so I'll commit, then we can deal with
follow-ups.
> 1) We have a bunc
Hi, I'm sorry for a late response.
On 19/10/17 13:52, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 08:52:50PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
The following patch is an attempt at libsanitizer merge from upstream.
Sadly libubsan has several ABI incompatible changes, dunno if we should
fight the mess
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 08:52:50PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> The following patch is an attempt at libsanitizer merge from upstream.
> Sadly libubsan has several ABI incompatible changes, dunno if we should
> fight the mess and re-add backward compatibility back, or as the patch
> does just bump
18 matches
Mail list logo
