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: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 14:36:24 +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> <CAKdteObcAAaSNW-FwPhnnje6X3=JnfpM3zy1PpdExfixGWpgMA at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 3 June 2014 14:46, Christophe Lyon <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 3 June 2014 12:16, Yury Gribov <email@example.com> 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.
So after applying my patch to qemu, I no longer see this error.
Now, all execution tests fail in timeout after generating ASAN:SEGV.
Which means I have to investigate is going-on :-(
It worked better in February :-(