This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Cross-testing libsanitizer
- From: Christophe Lyon <christophe dot lyon at linaro dot org>
- To: Yury Gribov <y dot gribov at samsung dot com>
- Cc: "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 14:46:43 +0200
- Subject: Re: Cross-testing libsanitizer
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAKdteOZt1FOVXAp0KwQAs7nKeKn=iBSGEEf=KbD_Vcgs66Pgug at mail dot gmail dot com> <538D6DBD dot 4030406 at samsung dot com> <CAKdteOYYg+oAhDPDZN-Q+KDUJMg+Hh-8H4oBgDVUvLYhxV+d2Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <538DA071 dot 8080608 at samsung dot com>
On 3 June 2014 12:16, Yury Gribov <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> Is this 8G of RAM? If yes - I'd be curious to know which part of
>>> libsanitizer needs so much memory.
>> Here is what I have in gcc.log:
>> ==12356==ERROR: AddressSanitizer failed to allocate 0x200001000
>> (8589938688) bytes at address ffffff000 (errno: 12)^M
>> ==12356==ReserveShadowMemoryRange failed while trying to map
>> 0x200001000 bytes. Perhaps you're using ulimit -v^M
> Interesting. AFAIK Asan maps shadow memory with NORESERVE flag so it should
> not consume any RAM at all...
Thanks for the reminder.... in fact I posted a qemu patch in February
I thought it was applied, but it's not yet in trunk....
I used to use a patched qemu, but when I upgraded to 2.0 I forgot
about this patch.
I am going to re-check with a patched qemu, and ping them.