On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 7:59 AM, John David Anglin wrote:
> As far as I can tell, libsanitizer works on hppa-linux. So, the change
> could be added to the llvm tree.
> However, I'm unlikely to test anything in the tree unless someone tells me
> there's something to test.
Submitted the hppa patch
As far as I can tell, libsanitizer works on hppa-linux. So, the
change could be added to the llvm tree.
However, I'm unlikely to test anything in the tree unless someone
tells me there's something to test.
Dave
On 15-Nov-13, at 10:52 PM, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
Dave,
Do you want the
Dave,
Do you want the asan/asan_linux.cc (# elif defined(__hppa__)) part to
be in the llvm tree?
--kcc
On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 3:55 AM, John David Anglin wrote:
> On 15-Nov-13, at 9:51 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 08:16:47AM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 2
On 15-Nov-13, at 9:51 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 08:16:47AM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 11:25 -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 00:49 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
2013-11-12 Jakub Jelinek
* sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platf
On Fri, 2013-11-15 at 15:51 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 08:16:47AM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > Ok, Dave reported in PR59009 that my last patch still left a few build
> > problems on HPPA. Dave tested the patch below and confirmed this cleans
>
> How can there be prob
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 08:16:47AM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 11:25 -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 00:49 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > 2013-11-12 Jakub Jelinek
> > >
> > > * sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cc: Temporarily
>
On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 11:25 -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 00:49 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > 2013-11-12 Jakub Jelinek
> >
> > * sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cc: Temporarily
> > ifdef out almost the whole source.
> > * sanitizer_common/san
On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 16:42 -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 18:29 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:25:06AM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > > > * sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cc:
> > > > Temporarily
> > > > ifdef out
On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 18:29 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:25:06AM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > > * sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cc: Temporarily
> > > ifdef out almost the whole source.
> > > * sanitizer_common/sanitizer_common_syscalls.inc: Li
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:25:06AM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 00:49 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > 2013-11-12 Jakub Jelinek
> >
> > * sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cc: Temporarily
> > ifdef out almost the whole source.
> > * sanitizer_com
On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 00:49 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> 2013-11-12 Jakub Jelinek
>
> * sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cc: Temporarily
> ifdef out almost the whole source.
> * sanitizer_common/sanitizer_common_syscalls.inc: Likewise.
That helps, but as Pat
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Michael Meissner
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:45:54AM +0400, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
>> Many thanks, Jakub.
>>
>> I don't want to appear in this situation again.
>> Would you suggest a place to create a wiki page which would list all
>> required steps to te
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:45:54AM +0400, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
> Many thanks, Jakub.
>
> I don't want to appear in this situation again.
> Would you suggest a place to create a wiki page which would list all
> required steps to test libsanitizer?
>
> libsanitizer is (unfortunately) a very sys
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Michael Meissner
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 09:43:38AM -0800, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
>> or, alternatively, we can disable libsanitizer on PowerPC if the
>> PowerPC community does not care enough about it being healthy.
>
> I think there should be a global -
Many thanks, Jakub.
I don't want to appear in this situation again.
Would you suggest a place to create a wiki page which would list all
required steps to test libsanitizer?
libsanitizer is (unfortunately) a very system-dependent beast and our
upstream commits will break other platforms regularly
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:47:04AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 08:30:15PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Anyway, the following #ifdefs out tons of dead code and still builds just
> > fine, the only difference is that those symbols nothing really uses from
> > libasan/libt
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 08:30:15PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Anyway, the following #ifdefs out tons of dead code and still builds just
> fine, the only difference is that those symbols nothing really uses from
> libasan/libtsan are no longer exported, but nothing else changes.
Actually, ifdefi
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:34:48AM -0800, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:59:12AM -0800, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
> >> This is all dead code in gcc repo. This is why I am asking for any
> >> quick #ifdef.
> >> in clan
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:34:48AM -0800, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
> > Anyway, the following #ifdefs out tons of dead code and still builds just
>
> Thanks, that should work.
> I am really sorry I couldn't do it myself before -- just got back from travel.
So do you have some suggestion for #ifdef
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:59:12AM -0800, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
>> This is all dead code in gcc repo. This is why I am asking for any
>> quick #ifdef.
>> in clang repo this code is used by MemorySanitizer (and will be used
>> by asan/tsan
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:59:12AM -0800, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
> This is all dead code in gcc repo. This is why I am asking for any
> quick #ifdef.
> in clang repo this code is used by MemorySanitizer (and will be used
> by asan/tsan later).
I can't find how it is used in msan/ in the llvm rep
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:07:32AM -0800, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Michael Meissner
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 09:43:38AM -0800, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
>> >> or, alternatively, we can disab
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:07:32AM -0800, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Michael Meissner
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 09:43:38AM -0800, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
> >> or, alternatively, we can disable libsanitizer on PowerPC if the
> >> PowerPC community does
> If we revert the patch now, I will not be able to work on it again in
> nearest months, which means 4.9 will not get updated asan.
> How bad that is -- I don't know.
When you contribute patches, you should allocate enough time with your
employer to address any fall out. This problem likely affe
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:07:32AM -0800, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Michael Meissner
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 09:43:38AM -0800, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
> >> or, alternatively, we can disable libsanitizer on PowerPC if the
> >> PowerPC community does
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Michael Meissner
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 09:43:38AM -0800, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
>> or, alternatively, we can disable libsanitizer on PowerPC if the
>> PowerPC community does not care enough about it being healthy.
>
> I think there should be a global
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 09:43:38AM -0800, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
> or, alternatively, we can disable libsanitizer on PowerPC if the
> PowerPC community does not care enough about it being healthy.
I think there should be a global --enable-libsanitizer or whatever option that
would allow people t
or, alternatively, we can disable libsanitizer on PowerPC if the
PowerPC community does not care enough about it being healthy.
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
> [plain text]
> So far I was not able to reproduce the compilation failure -- and I am
> asking someone from t
[plain text]
So far I was not able to reproduce the compilation failure -- and I am
asking someone from the PowerPC side to help.
Please apply any minimal #ifdef patch to
sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cc to make it compile, while keeping
x86_64 tests pass.
If we revert the patch now, I will not
29 matches
Mail list logo
