This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: libsanitizer merge from upstream r196090
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Konstantin Serebryany <konstantin dot s dot serebryany at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>, Dodji Seketeli <dodji at redhat dot com>, Marek Polacek <polacek at redhat dot com>, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov at google dot com>, Evgeniy Stepanov <eugenis at google dot com>, Alexey Samsonov <samsonov at google dot com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 09:22:51 +0100
- Subject: Re: libsanitizer merge from upstream r196090
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAFULd4ZrFy-o7GmDh31WRpoxiYwwLpaAY6pOtxCZ9i-+4kfv1A at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAGQ9bdzMRvFOWXmAbRoXAM4otn6JMR8AALspJ1s=hP=jgm7KXQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAFULd4Z-HrnYedyH_fcH1knQAD+=4jmC_xOBacgs2-DJhGWD0Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <20131202164412 dot GN892 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <CAGQ9bdwJ3nePVREarj06mSpAc40LDGC37TXUVcKjbtQ3VSKH+A at mail dot gmail dot com> <20131202223259 dot GQ892 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <CAGQ9bdz3juofpO8dCPPbagSN8NBad5_ig36nnPciR13P0Dm_hw at mail dot gmail dot com>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 06:28:31AM +0100, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
> We don't have any .cfi stuff in sanitizer_common (and I don't think we
> really need it in the internal_clone).
> Before fixing the tsan sources I'd like to see some indication that
> anyone cares about tsan working on older systems.
Of course various parties care about that. But that doesn't necessarily
imply they can or want to run buildbots for a different compiler they don't
care about, there are e.g. security implications to that, resources etc.
For GCC new ports etc. we never require people running some buildbots,
people just report issues they encounter and those issues are fixed.
> tsan makes many assumptions about the system (address space, etc)
> which may not hold on old systems anyway.
> And tsan, even if it builds, will not work reliably.
>
> I really think that we need to disable libsanitizer on old systems
> until someone volunteers to set up a proper testing process upstream.
> If no one volunteers -- no one really needs it.
The problem is that the definition of "old systems" is extremelly fuzzy,
for you it is clearly != "Ubuntu 12.04" or similar, but the unwritten
assumptions libsanitizer makes are not related to one exact version of
a single dependent component, it is a matter of compiler, compiler
configuration, binutils, glibc, kernel, kernel headers, ...
So, how do you disable libsanitizer on "old systems" when it is so fuzzy?
There may be assumptions you just don't know about, and "fixing" bugreports
by just adding reporter's toolchain combinations to kill lists is certainly
not the way GCC is developed.
Jakub