This is the mail archive of the 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: [PATCH] Copy libsanitizer from llvm at revision 167890

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 5:01 AM, Rainer Orth
<> wrote:
> "H.J. Lu" <> writes:
>>>> I think all changes should go upstream first.  It was a mistake
>>>> to check sparc changes into GCC tree.
>>> I disagree, as do others: it is undesirable for gcc maintainers to have
>>> to interact with many different upstream communities to get their
>>> changes in.  This is far better dealt with by the respective
>>> subsystem/library maintainers who have links to both communities.
>> This may work for a mature library.  libsanitizer keeps changes.
>> Local changes make it hard to sync with upstream.
> I'm not talking about local changes, just about a liaison to take care
> of moving changes started on the gcc side upstream.  Say you're working
> on a platform not supported by LLVM (e.g. Solaris, I haven't checked):
> why should you be forced to deal with them and their infrastructure
> (mailinglists etc.) to get asan in gcc working on your platform?
> This is exactly how Ian moves my libgo changes upstream and imports
> upstream libgo once in a while.

We don't have a maintainer is a problem, not go upstream first.

I have a patch pending to enable mulltib.  But libsanitizer doesn't
work on x32 and it doesn't cause bootstrap problem with x32
enabled on Linux/x86-64.  As soon as multlib is enabled, my bootstrap
will fail since libsanitizer doesn't compile for x32.   It has been fixed
upstream.    Should we apply a local fix or copy from upstream?


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