search for: js17

...going to have make modification in advance. It's worked so far with most things I've attempted but LLVM/Clang/compiler-rt is an order of magnitude more complex than anything else I've poked at. The biggest success I've had so far with this method is porting of Mozilla Spidermonkey/js17. > 2) If we're stepping on the path of porting some sanitizers to x32, it > would be great to > setup a buildbot, make our tests pass cleanly, and make this bot public to > catch regressions. > Do you have plans for that? Running sanitizer test suites also leads us > to... &g...

...ce. It's worked so far with > > most things I've attempted but LLVM/Clang/compiler-rt is an order of > > magnitude more complex than anything else I've poked at. The biggest > > success I've had so far with this method is porting of Mozilla > > Spidermonkey/js17. > > > > So, IIUC, if you're working on making LLVM/Clang/compiler-rt source tree > build on x32 host, I suggest your first step should be: disable building > compiler-rt > on x32 host :) One of the reasons: in makefile-based build compiler-rt > sources > are compile...

...odification in advance. It's worked so far with > most things I've attempted but LLVM/Clang/compiler-rt is an order of > magnitude more complex than anything else I've poked at. The biggest > success I've had so far with this method is porting of Mozilla > Spidermonkey/js17. > So, IIUC, if you're working on making LLVM/Clang/compiler-rt source tree build on x32 host, I suggest your first step should be: disable building compiler-rt on x32 host :) One of the reasons: in makefile-based build compiler-rt sources are compiled with just-built Clang (I honestly don&...

...t; > > most things I've attempted but LLVM/Clang/compiler-rt is an order of > > > > magnitude more complex than anything else I've poked at. The biggest > > > > success I've had so far with this method is porting of Mozilla > > > > Spidermonkey/js17. > > > > > > > > > > So, IIUC, if you're working on making LLVM/Clang/compiler-rt source tree > > > build on x32 host, I suggest your first step should be: disable building > > > compiler-rt > > > on x32 host :) One of the reasons: in mak...

...so far with > > > most things I've attempted but LLVM/Clang/compiler-rt is an order of > > > magnitude more complex than anything else I've poked at. The biggest > > > success I've had so far with this method is porting of Mozilla > > > Spidermonkey/js17. > > > > > > > So, IIUC, if you're working on making LLVM/Clang/compiler-rt source tree > > build on x32 host, I suggest your first step should be: disable building > > compiler-rt > > on x32 host :) One of the reasons: in makefile-based build compiler-rt...

Hi Steven, This looks interesting and raises a number of questions :) 1) Does applying this patch actually bring working sanitizers to x32 platform? That is, after you build the clang, does "clang -fsanitize=whatever foo.c" compile/link/run with expected results? I doubt that, as there is some platform-specific code in all the sanitizers, and many of them heavily depend on the address

X32 support patch for compiler-rt. Applies against current trunk. --- projects/compiler-rt/make/platform/clang_linux.mk~ 2013-08-21 06:27:38.000000000 +0000 +++ projects/compiler-rt/make/platform/clang_linux.mk 2013-08-21 11:16:55.891621025 +0000 @@ -41,7 +41,18 @@ SupportedArches += x86_64 endif else - SupportedArches := x86_64 + # x86-64 arch has two ABIs 64 bit x86-64 and 32 bit