similar to: [LLVMdev] compiler-rt CMake build

The trouble is that the sanitizer tests are not really compiler-rt tests. The original compiler-rt tests are, but not the sanitizer tests. The sanitizer tests are "compiler-rt tests via clang". The sanitizer runtime is a C++ library requiring only a C++ compiler to build it (and to *unit* test it). The ASan lit tests, however, require clang, because they are testing those C++

For me, UBsan fails with clang 3.2 and passes with clang 3.3. Using a fixed version allows you to build all clang/llvm/compiler-rt with one compiler. It simplifies the build process quite a bit. Also better for isolating regressions in compiler-rt, especially if you use git-bisect. Greg On May 29, 2013, at 12:30 AM, Alexey Samsonov <samsonov at google.com> wrote: > UBsan tests work

> Cool, can you use clang 3.3 then? :) I can, but digging deeper I see that the compiler-rt sanitizer tests depend on just-built-clang for its object instrumentation. The next time the instrumentation changes, I'd expect those tests to break. If the lit tests that require -fsanitize were moved to the clang repo, then I think it'd be safe to build compiler-rt with clang 3.3 or gcc

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> wrote: > For me, UBsan fails with clang 3.2 and passes with clang 3.3. > Cool, can you use clang 3.3 then? :) I think that the reason selected UBSan tests fail under clang 3.2 is a bug in Clang, which was fixed (Richard may correct me if I'm wrong). I don't really want to mark these tests as "failing

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:40 AM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> wrote: > > Cool, can you use clang 3.3 then? :) > > I can, but digging deeper I see that the compiler-rt sanitizer tests > depend on just-built-clang for its object instrumentation. The next time > the instrumentation changes, I'd expect those tests to break. If the lit > tests that require

Okay, dropping gcc 4.4.3 makes sense. How do you feel about using clang 3.2 (and the upcoming 3.3) instead of tip-of-the-trunk clang? It looks like everything works great, but that you just need to make those UB tests 'unsupported' since they fail with "libclang_rt.ubsan was built without __int128 support". Thanks, Greg On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Alexey Samsonov

Alexey, >> Some good news, the drivers (both gcc and clang) allow us to put the >> '-L' parameters after the '-l' parameters. I made these changes locally and it went really well. The patch to clang is quite small and only one unit-test needed updating. In compiler-rt, I updated the flags passed to clang to include a '-L${COMPILER_RT_BINARY_DIR}/lib' and

On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 4:12 AM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> wrote: > When I build compiler-rt with clang 3.2, all lsan tests pass. The only > failing tests I see are in ubsan: > > Failing Tests (6): > UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer :: Float/cast-overflow.cpp > UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer :: Integer/add-overflow.cpp > UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer ::

UBsan tests work for me when I run "check-ubsan" in both build trees (the one with gcc 4.6.3 as a host compiler, and the one with fresh Clang). It's pretty convenient for us to use fresh Clang to configure LLVM and compiler-rt. One major reason is that autoconf/make build system always builds compiler-rt with just-built Clang. There are other benefits, like keeping sanitizers code

> What is the exact line you use to configure build tree, and the output you see? cmake ../.. \ -G Ninja \ -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=ship \ -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release \ -DLLVM_ENABLE_ASSERTIONS=ON \ -DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD=ARM \ -DLLVM_DEFAULT_TARGET_TRIPLE=arm-none-linux-gnueabi \ -DLLVM_TARGET_ARCH=arm-none-linux-gnueabi \ -DLLVM_LIT_ARGS=-v ninja check-all

On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't think it's a good idea to let user hijack > > the driver and stuff in custom version of > > ASan runtime instead the one installed/built > > with compiler :) > > I'm okay with it. This is open source. If someone wants to put the > sanitizers on a shorter

On 28 May 2014 17:44, Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com> wrote: > In the autoconf system, I'm pretty sure compiler-rt's build is triggered > by a Makefile in clang, tools/clang/runtime/compiler-rt/Makefile. This > Makefile comments "We currently only try to generate runtime libraries > on x86", so I guess that's the place to start if you want to get it

> Not that I know of, and I always build compiler-rt natively, together with Clang and LLVM. :( Do you mean "natively on ARM" or "natively on X86 with the ARM target enabled"? If the former, do you have a script to merge the target libs into the host's install directory? If the latter, that'll only build the X86 versions of the compiler-rt libraries. > Would

On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 12:17 AM, Evgeniy Stepanov < eugeni.stepanov at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 4:12 AM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> > wrote: > > When I build compiler-rt with clang 3.2, all lsan tests pass. The only > > failing tests I see are in ubsan: > > > > Failing Tests (6): > > UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer ::

> it assumes that compiler-rt is checked out to > llvm/projects/compiler-rt. Apparently, this is a problem. I have a patch for this ready. I'll send it to you and llvm-commits. Most of the tests pass with "make check-all" but the recently-added lsan tests are all failing. Do those fail for you as well? If so, can we XFAIL them for now and try to keep the "make

> Android runtime is special, we build it in a separate build tree configured with > -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=$LLVM_CHECKOUT/cmake/platforms/Android.cmake This worked great, thanks! Would you mind tweaking Android.cmake so that I can override the location of the C compiler? The current version forces me to use the just-built-clang and that the new build directory be in a sibling directory.

> First of all, sorry for the late response (I'm in the process of moving to California). Welcome! > We need to verify that simple command "clang -fsanitize=address foo.cc" works Agreed. The test suite is useful in many different scenarios: 1) Verifying the integrated clang. 2) Verifying the integrated gcc. 3) Verifying the libraries during development. I'm working

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> wrote: > > What is the exact line you use to configure build tree, and the output > you see? > > cmake ../.. \ > -G Ninja \ > -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=ship \ > -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release \ > -DLLVM_ENABLE_ASSERTIONS=ON \ > -DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD=ARM \ >

Are there any sanitizer lit tests in non-X86 configurations? For example: $ cmake -DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD=ARM \ -DLLVM_DEFAULT_TARGET_TRIPLE=arm-none-linux-gnueabi \ -DLLVM_TARGET_ARCH=arm-none-linux-gnueabi All ASan tests were removed from the build and all the other sanitizers have tests but they all fail. Should they all be disabled too? Or can we add a REQUIRES tag to get lit to

I blame this line in lsan/lit_tests/lit.cfg: # Setup attributes common for all compiler-rt projects. compiler_rt_lit_cfg = os.path.join(llvm_src_root, "projects", "compiler-rt", "lib", "lit.common.cfg") On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Alexey Samsonov <samsonov at google.com>wrote: > > On Fri, May 24,