This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PATCH: PR other/55292: libsanitizer doesn't support x32
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 03:31:21AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 3:20 AM, Dodji Seketeli <dodji@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > Diego Novillo <dnovillo@google.com> a écrit:
>> >
>> >> Patches to libsanitizer should be sent upstream. We should only
>> >> contain a copy of the master in the LLVM repository. There should be
>> >> instructions in libsanitizer/README.gcc (Jakub, Dodji, are they there?
>> >> I can't check ATM).
>> >
>> > No there are not, for the moment. README.gcc just says where the
>> > sources the 'upstream' project is.
>> >
>>
>> What is the plan to add GCC specific support:
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55291
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55292
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55304
>>
>> and
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg00967.html
>
> CCing Wei, I don't know the details about the import. To me it looks like
> that most or all of the libsanitizer/ level files (and
> libsanitizer/*/Makefile.{am,in}) don't originate from
> llvm/projects/compiler-rt/lib , so they should be owned by GCC and thus
> should be changed to support multilibs, use the same libtool/autoconf/etc.
> versions as rest of gcc etc.
>
Agree.
> For changes to the files actually imported from LLVM I guess it depends on
> if google is going to accept such changes in the LLVM upstream. For
> unsupported targets we want to add target-libsanitizer into noconfigdirs
> in toplevel configure.
>
These would be files under libsanitizer/asan, libsanitizer/tsan,
libsanitizer/sanitizer_common, libsanitizer/include directories.
For changes in those directories, why not sending the patch to Kosyta
and Dmitry, whom I assume will help review the patch and do the commit
properly?
> Note that just making libsanitizer to build on some architecture is not
> enough for full ASAN support, one needs to also add the target hook with
> mem>>3 to shadow offset, and I guess review all other spots where
> libsanitizer uses __i386__ or __x86_64__ macros.
>
> I'd also say that using sanitizer_atomic_clang.h for GCC is not a good
> idea, now that GCC 4.7+ has __atomic_* support that should be usable
> for most of the __sanitizer::atomic* stuff.
Right, but that can be changed.
thanks,
David
>
> Jakub