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] |
On 05/20/2015 05:01 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Thanks. Seems to be moving along. Looks like they were a bit surprised that you'd included a patch ;-)Now that I know a bit more from Jakub & Yuri's comments, I don't thinkI opened compiler_rt/23600 and attached the sanitizer patch to it: http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=23600 If there are no objections to the bug I'll post the patch for review next.
So I'll ask the question(s) in a slightly different way and see if that guides us one direction or another. Do the libbacktrace changes make sense independently? ie, are they the right thing to do, even if they don't fix a visible bug? ISTM the answer to both questions is yes. In which case, that part ought to go forward now rather than waiting.Yes. They fix the sort stability bug. The bug can be reproduced without any ASan patches by compiling the ASan tests on powerpc64 with the -fasynchronous-unwind-tables option. It's also possible that the bug can be reproduced with other programs on other targets. It's just not triggered by the same tests on the targets we commonly test.
OK. You can go ahead and commit the libbacktrace fix.Let's hold off on the testsuite fixes until we've got the sanitizer & libbacktrace fixes installed.
jeff
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |