search for: atomic_uint32_t

...; in xray runtime, > bool atomic_compare_exchange_strong(volatile atomic_sint32_t *a, > s32 *cmp, > s32 xchg, > memory_order mo) > is missed for MSVC , I take atomic_uint32_t implementation > > > This is in compiler-rt/lib/sanitizer_common/... right? yes, sanitizer_atomic_msvc.h didn't provide this override. according to msdn of interlockedcompareexchange, implementation for atomic_uint32_t should also works for atomic_sint32_t. this is a copy/paste but I...

...sled and xray parts. in xray runtime, bool atomic_compare_exchange_strong(volatile atomic_sint32_t *a, s32 *cmp, s32 xchg, memory_order mo) is missed for MSVC , I take atomic_uint32_t implementation msvc 14.1 treats BufferQueue::Buffer::Buffer as constructor instead of data member, Buf.Buffer=>Buf.Data FunctionRecord pack , __attribute__((packed)) => #pragma pack(push,1), msvc also requires bitfields to be same type to pack them together( all types => uint32_t) FD...

First off, thanks -- this is a pretty great library and it feels like I'm learning a lot. I'm getting some more experience with libfuzzer and finding that I have a couple of questions: - How does libfuzzer decide to write a new test file? What distinguishes this one from all the other cases for which new test inputs were not written? Must be something about the path taken through the

...> Ok, that's good advice. -- -Brian -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150811/0323f018/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- #0 atomic_exchange<__sanitizer::atomic_uint32_t> (mo=__sanitizer::memory_order_acquire, v=2, a=0x640000001290) #1 __sanitizer::BlockingMutex::Lock (this=this at entry=0x640000001290) at /home/brian/tmp/testing/llvm_src/llvm/projects/compiler-rt/lib/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_linux.cc:471 #2 0x0000000000447899 in GenericScopedLock (mu=mu at...

I'm learning the xray library and try if it can be built on windows, in xray_fdr_logging_impl.h line 152 , comment written as // Using pthread_once(...) to initialize the thread-local data structures but at line 175, 183, code written as thread_local pthread_key_t key; // Ensure that we only actually ever do the pthread initialization once. thread_local bool UNUSED Unused = [] {