Kostya, Christophe, I'm running the full tests on AARch64 and the only RT test that fails is: UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer-Standalone :: TestCases/Float/cast-overflow.cpp The problem seems to be a trap in __sanitizer::internal_memchr() while trying to handle __ubsan::__ubsan_handle_float_cast_overflow(). I haven't looked at it in detail, has anyone seen this? Is UBSan meant to run on AArch64? Should we mark this test XFAIL until it can be looked at properly? cheers, --renato
On 7 January 2015 at 17:33, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:> Kostya, Christophe, > > I'm running the full tests on AARch64 and the only RT test that fails is: > > UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer-Standalone :: TestCases/Float/cast-overflow.cpp > > The problem seems to be a trap in __sanitizer::internal_memchr() while > trying to handle __ubsan::__ubsan_handle_float_cast_overflow(). > > I haven't looked at it in detail, has anyone seen this? Is UBSan meant > to run on AArch64? Should we mark this test XFAIL until it can be > looked at properly? >I was focusing on ASan, so I didn't look at UBSan. Sorry to have no clue.> cheers, > --renato
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:> Kostya, Christophe, > > I'm running the full tests on AARch64 and the only RT test that fails is: > > UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer-Standalone :: TestCases/Float/cast-overflow.cpp > > The problem seems to be a trap in __sanitizer::internal_memchr() while > trying to handle __ubsan::__ubsan_handle_float_cast_overflow(). >Can you give more info (exact report, gdb trace, etc)> > I haven't looked at it in detail, has anyone seen this? Is UBSan meant > to run on AArch64?We never tried, but there is very little platform dependent code in UBSan.> Should we mark this test XFAIL until it can be > looked at properly? >Ideally no, but if this is blocking you and there is no quick fix, please add something like XFAIL: aarch64 (not sure about the exact syntax)> > cheers, > --renato >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150107/cfe3f734/attachment.html>
On 7 January 2015 at 18:19, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote:> Can you give more info (exact report, gdb trace, etc)It's not that simple, as the actual failure is down the service routine, which only triggers way down the execution line, so stepping through it is not trivial. One would have to know what to expect (ie. know the UBsan code, setthe right breakpoints) and step through on AArch64 directly. Unfortunately, I can't give you access to that machine. :(> We never tried, but there is very little platform dependent code in UBSan.Maybe I should disable it. the thing is that I want to get a baseline, where we can start from a green bot. Marking as XFAIL is one way to document that "this should pass", instead of UNSUPPORTED, which shouldn't. Since it's already marked as XFAIL for ARM, I'm guessing one fix should help both archs. cheers, --renato