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: Patch ping


> But ubsan is a new feature in 4.9, and it is a bootstrap failure
> with that feature.

I will leave it up to the release manager to decide if they want this
non-regression patch applied before the branch, then.

> This is for the host libiberty only, and only when gcc is configured
> a certain way.  The intent is to have libiberty that is going to be
> linked into all the build and host tools instrumented, so that we
> actually catch bugs in libiberty or bugs in host/build tools calling
> libiberty functions as much as possible, but for the lto-plugin,
> which is dlopened by the linker which we don't have a control on, we
> need host libiberty without the address sanitization because
> otherwise it would only work properly if the linker itself has been
> address sanitized.

So, if libiberty isn't built with sanitization, it would still *work*
but not be instrumented?


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