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


Dave,

Do you want the asan/asan_linux.cc (# elif defined(__hppa__)) part to
be in the llvm tree?

--kcc

On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 3:55 AM, John David Anglin <dave.anglin@bell.net> wrote:
> On 15-Nov-13, at 9:51 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 08:16:47AM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 11:25 -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 00:49 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 2013-11-12  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>         * sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cc:
>>>>> Temporarily
>>>>>         ifdef out almost the whole source.
>>>>>         * sanitizer_common/sanitizer_common_syscalls.inc: Likewise.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That helps, but as Pat reported in the bugzilla, it still is failing.
>>>> With the following patch, we can now bootstrap on powerpc64-linux.
>>>>
>>>> Is this ok for trunk?
>>>>
>>>> Does this help the other architectures that are failing for the same
>>>> build error?
>>>
>>>
>>> Ok, Dave reported in PR59009 that my last patch still left a few build
>>> problems on HPPA.  Dave tested the patch below and confirmed this cleans
>>
>>
>> How can there be problems on HPPA?  libsanitizer/configure.tgt says that
>> hppa* is UNSUPPORTED, so libsanitizer should never be built there.
>> Furthermore, it would be nice to understand why the sigaction is
>> different.
>
>
>
> Actually, it turns out I have had a patch in my tree enabling it.
>
> Dave
> --
> John David Anglin       dave.anglin@bell.net
>
>


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