Hi Evgeniy,
So, to XFAIL some UBSAN failues, I found an issue:
UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer-AddressSanitizer :: TestCases/TypeCheck/vptr.cpp
UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer-Standalone :: TestCases/Misc/missing_return.cpp
These two tests fail on that configuration, but pass when reversed.
So, if I XFAIL: armv7l..., I get the following error:
UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer-AddressSanitizer ::
TestCases/Misc/missing_return.cpp
UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer-Standalone :: TestCases/TypeCheck/vptr.cpp
Not sure how to state that the XFAIL is for a specific configuration...
cheers,
--renato
Do you mean they XPASS now? I think you need to define more "features" in lit to match against. See how we define "asan-static-runtime" and "asan-dynamic-runtime", for example. We might need the full set of asan-$arch, ubsan-$arch, asan-ubsan-$arch. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:> Hi Evgeniy, > > So, to XFAIL some UBSAN failues, I found an issue: > > UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer-AddressSanitizer :: TestCases/TypeCheck/vptr.cpp > UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer-Standalone :: TestCases/Misc/missing_return.cpp > > These two tests fail on that configuration, but pass when reversed. > So, if I XFAIL: armv7l..., I get the following error: > > UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer-AddressSanitizer :: > TestCases/Misc/missing_return.cpp > UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer-Standalone :: TestCases/TypeCheck/vptr.cpp > > Not sure how to state that the XFAIL is for a specific configuration... > > cheers, > --renato
On 9 October 2014 09:35, Evgeniy Stepanov <eugenis at google.com> wrote:> Do you mean they XPASS now?Yes.> I think you need to define more "features" in lit to match against.I thought about this, and I think we should try to fix it first, and only increment the XFAIL granularity if indeed we can't fix it. I'll send another email with the three remaining classes of problems... cheers, --renato