This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: Revert libsanitizer patches or fix 59009


On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:07:32AM -0800, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Michael Meissner
> <meissner@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 09:43:38AM -0800, Kostya Serebryany wrote:
> >> or, alternatively, we can disable libsanitizer on PowerPC if the
> >> PowerPC community does not care enough about it being healthy.
> >
> > I think there should be a global --enable-libsanitizer or whatever option that
> > would allow people to enable it.  It should only be default on x86_64 until
> > people are motivated to fix libsantizer on all instances of the platform.
> 
> I don't mind that.

Perhaps I'm totally blind, but how exactly are the
sanitizer_common_syscalls.inc interceptors used (seems most of the portability
trouble is caused by that)?  I see it defines tons of functions like
__sanitizer_syscall_post_impl_*
__sanitizer_syscall_pre_impl_*
but I couldn't find anything actually referencing those symbols.  Is that
just dead code for the time being?

	Jakub


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