similar to: [LLVMdev] radr://12777299, "potential pthread/eh bug exposed by libsanitizer"

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 900 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] radr://12777299, "potential pthread/eh bug exposed by libsanitizer""

2012 Nov 29
0
[LLVMdev] radr://12777299, "potential pthread/eh bug exposed by libsanitizer"
+glider The compiler hardly matters here, I would expect the same failures with clang. Alex, could you please take a look? --kcc On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.med.uc.edu>wrote: > Nick, > Can you take a quick look at the asan_eh_bug.tar.bz testcase > I uploaded into the newly opened radr://12777299, "potential > pthread/eh bug exposed
2012 Nov 29
5
[LLVMdev] radr://12777299, "potential pthread/eh bug exposed by libsanitizer"
Jack, can you please upload this test somewhere? On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > +glider > The compiler hardly matters here, I would expect the same failures with > clang. > Alex, could you please take a look? > > --kcc > > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.med.uc.edu> >
2012 Nov 29
0
[LLVMdev] radr://12777299, "potential pthread/eh bug exposed by libsanitizer"
If this is the same test: http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/cond1.C.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=NONE&r2=1.1, then it doesn't fail for me on Mac OS 10.8 with ASan (Clang r168632) Have you tried symbolizing the report? On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Alexander Potapenko <glider at google.com> wrote: > Jack, can you please upload this test somewhere?
2012 Nov 29
0
[LLVMdev] radr://12777299, "potential pthread/eh bug exposed by libsanitizer"
I debugged this a bit and it seems the mach_override patching of __cxa_throw is bogus. The start of that function is patched to jump to garbage. Breakpoint 1, 0x0000000100001c19 in main () (gdb) display/i $pc 2: x/i $pc 0x100001c19 <main+318>: callq 0x100016386 <dyld_stub___cxa_throw> (gdb) si 0x0000000100016386 in dyld_stub___cxa_throw () 2: x/i $pc 0x100016386
2012 Nov 30
3
[LLVMdev] radr://12777299, "potential pthread/eh bug exposed by libsanitizer"
Looks like this happens on x86_64 because the position of __cxa_throw is too far from the allocated branch island (should be <2G). This can be solved by allocating the branch islands somewhere near the text segment (look for kIslandEnd in asan_mac.cc, this is currently 0x7fffffdf0000) or by patching the function with a longer instruction sequence that stores the jump target in a register and
2012 Nov 30
0
[LLVMdev] radr://12777299, "potential pthread/eh bug exposed by libsanitizer"
Just want to remind everyone that we plan to stop using mach_override in asanin favor of OSX's native function interposition. So, we probably don't want to spend too much effort fixing mach_override. --kcc On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:46 AM, Alexander Potapenko <glider at google.com>wrote: > Looks like this happens on x86_64 because the position of __cxa_throw > is too far from
2012 Dec 01
4
[LLVMdev] radr://12777299, "potential pthread/eh bug exposed by libsanitizer"
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 01:41:05PM +0400, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > Just want to remind everyone that we plan to stop using mach_override in > asanin favor of OSX's native function interposition. > So, we probably don't want to spend too much effort fixing mach_override. > > --kcc Kostya, Unless I am misunderstanding the code in asan/asan_intercepted_functions.h,
2012 Nov 30
2
[LLVMdev] radr://12777299, "potential pthread/eh bug exposed by libsanitizer"
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 01:41:05PM +0400, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > Just want to remind everyone that we plan to stop using mach_override in > asanin favor of OSX's native function interposition. > So, we probably don't want to spend too much effort fixing mach_override. > > --kcc Kostya, Is the native function interposition that is being adopted based on...
2012 Dec 01
0
[LLVMdev] radr://12777299, "potential pthread/eh bug exposed by libsanitizer"
+kremenek, ganna On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 4:33 AM, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.med.uc.edu>wrote: > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 01:41:05PM +0400, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > > Just want to remind everyone that we plan to stop using mach_override in > > asanin favor of OSX's native function interposition. > > So, we probably don't want to spend too much effort fixing
2012 Dec 01
1
[LLVMdev] radr://12777299, "potential pthread/eh bug exposed by libsanitizer"
On Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 05:42:15PM +0400, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > +kremenek, ganna > > On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 4:33 AM, Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.med.uc.edu>wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 01:41:05PM +0400, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > > > Just want to remind everyone that we plan to stop using mach_override in > > > asanin favor of OSX's
2012 Nov 30
1
[LLVMdev] radr://12777299, "potential pthread/eh bug exposed by libsanitizer"
No, we are not going to use mach_inject. This isn't portable and may be even harder to set up than mach_override. The new ASan runtime will use the dylib interposition and will in fact require DYLD_INSERT_LIBRARIES to work. However ASan already handles it correctly itself: if the corresponding env var is missing the app is just re-execed. Dylib interposition is supported by Apple and should
2012 Dec 04
0
[LLVMdev] radr://12777299, "potential pthread/eh bug exposed by libsanitizer"
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 09:46:09AM -0800, Alexander Potapenko wrote: > +kledzik at apple.com > The dynamic runtime is using dylib interposition (google for > "__DATA,__interpose). > If I'm understanding correctly (Nick, can you please confirm this?) > this allows to interpose the function regardless of the two-level > namespace. > The support for dynamic runtime in
2012 Dec 04
3
[LLVMdev] radr://12777299, "potential pthread/eh bug exposed by libsanitizer"
+kledzik at apple.com The dynamic runtime is using dylib interposition (google for "__DATA,__interpose). If I'm understanding correctly (Nick, can you please confirm this?) this allows to interpose the function regardless of the two-level namespace. The support for dynamic runtime in ASan is almost there. But the new interposition method has revealed some issues with the allocator which
2012 Dec 04
0
[LLVMdev] radr://12777299, "potential pthread/eh bug exposed by libsanitizer"
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 10:36:18AM -0800, Alexander Potapenko wrote: > Currently the replacement of allocation routines is based on creating > a new malloc zone and a new CFAllocator (because the allocator > replacement is done later than it could be, we must have both). This > makes us depend on CoreFoundation to call CFAllocatorSetDefault. > Because of some bugs in CF which start
2012 Dec 04
3
[LLVMdev] radr://12777299, "potential pthread/eh bug exposed by libsanitizer"
Currently the replacement of allocation routines is based on creating a new malloc zone and a new CFAllocator (because the allocator replacement is done later than it could be, we must have both). This makes us depend on CoreFoundation to call CFAllocatorSetDefault. Because of some bugs in CF which start firing after CFAllocatorSetDefault, we have to add several hacks to circumvent the effects of
2012 Dec 04
0
[LLVMdev] radr://12777299, "potential pthread/eh bug exposed by libsanitizer"
On 30 November 2012 13:32, Alexander Potapenko <glider at google.com> wrote: > No, we are not going to use mach_inject. This isn't portable and may > be even harder to set up than mach_override. > The new ASan runtime will use the dylib interposition and will in fact > require DYLD_INSERT_LIBRARIES to work. However ASan already handles it > correctly itself: if the
2015 Sep 25
2
Dynamic VMA in Sanitizers for AArch64
On 09/25/2015 11:53 AM, Jakub Jelinek via llvm-dev wrote: > On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 01:19:48AM -0700, Renato Golin wrote: >> After long talks with lots of people, I think we have a winning >> strategy to deal with the variable nature of VMA address in AArch64. >> It seems that the best way forward is to try the dynamic calculation >> at runtime, evaluate the performance,
2015 Sep 25
3
Dynamic VMA in Sanitizers for AArch64
Hi folks, After long talks with lots of people, I think we have a winning strategy to deal with the variable nature of VMA address in AArch64. It seems that the best way forward is to try the dynamic calculation at runtime, evaluate the performance, and then, only if the hit is too great, think about compile-time alternatives. I'd like to know if everyone is in agreement, so we could get
2017 Apr 13
3
Question on induction variable simplification pass
Hi all, It looks like the induction variable simplification pass prefers doing a zero-extension to compute the wider trip count of loops when extending the IV. This can sometimes result in loss of information making ScalarEvolution's analysis conservative which can lead to missed performance opportunities. For example, consider this loopnest- int i, j; for(i=0; i< 40; i++) for(j=0;
2007 Dec 04
2
Multiple stacked barplots on the same graph?
Dear R-Users, I would like to know whether it is possible to draw several stacked barplots (i.e. side by side on the same sheet)... my data look like : Cond1 Cond1' Cond2 Cond2' Compartment 1 11,81 2,05 12,49 0,70 Compartment 2 10,51 1,98 13,56 0,85 Compartment 3 1,95 0,63 2,81 0,22 Compartment 4 2,08 0,17