This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: libsanitizer merge from upstream r196090


On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 5:47 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 8:04 AM, FX <fxcoudert@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > Well, it regresses against 4.8, so it still is a P1 regression.
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone care?
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, you’re one of the maintainers of libsanitizer for GCC, so if you do not care about regressions in your code, it makes little sense for GCC (the whole project) to keep libsanitizer.
>>>
>>> I’ve posted this regression a month ago, it was not addressed. I’m not sure under what specific arrangement libsanitizer was added to GCC, but in general there is a responsibility of maintainers not to break bootstrap in their code. Yes, it’s a cost, and if you are not willing to do it, why did you contribute in the first place?
>>>
>>> Or is it a “hit and run” approach to maintainership?
>>
>> I believe this is a case where the GCC project gets more benefit from
>> libsanitizer than libsanitizer gets from being part of the GCC
>> project.  We should work with the libsanitizer developers to make this
>> work, not just push everything back on them.
>>
>
> I think libsanitizer should be disabled automatically if kernel or glibc are
> too old.
>
> BTW, fixincludes should fix the bad kernel header files from SuSE.

Indeed - I'll give it a shot.

Richard.

>
> --
> H.J.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]