This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Getting ready to merge AddressSanitizer into trunk
- From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: Dodji Seketeli <dodji at redhat dot com>
- Cc: GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Wei Mi <wmi at google dot com>, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google dot com>, David Edelsohn <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 12:30:53 -0600
- Subject: Re: Getting ready to merge AddressSanitizer into trunk
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On 10/29/2012 12:07 PM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
* [Testing]Yea, a dejagnu compatible testing framework would definitively be a good
thing. It's going to be much harder for folks not familiar with asan
keep their patches from breaking asan without a testsuite.
It seems like we still lack a (good) test harness for asan. Most (if
not all) of the patches we sent were tested by inspecting the gimple
and assembly output on testing some random input files.
So has anyone run this asan implementation on stronger inputs like
spec & co?
In any case, after 4.8 (or even after stage1) I guess we'll seriously
need to have a DejaGNU compatible test harness for asan.
I think this is (has?) working its way through the steering committee;
there were some minor changes we've asked to be made upstream, but I
don't see anything significant standing in the way right now.
* [Runtime library]
What are the remaining blocking issues holding us back from having the
runtime library be copied verbatim from its LLVM home to the GCC tree,
and been synced regularly starting from there?
Seems reasonable. I can't think of a reason why that process couldn't
Assuming all these topics gets consensus, I guess someone needs to
submit a set of logical patches representing the changes that happened
on the branch, for the official review of the branch prior to the
stage1 closing date. I can help with doing that if no-ones steps up,
but then I'll need help from the various committers on the branch to
address the comments that will arise during the review.
What do you think?