This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: Cross-testing libsanitizer


On 3 June 2014 14:46, Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 3 June 2014 12:16, Yury Gribov <y.gribov@samsung.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
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2014-02/msg00319.html
> 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 :-(

Christophe.


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