similar to: [LLVMdev] Unifying TSan blacklist and no_sanitize_thread

On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 1:53 AM, Evgeniy Stepanov <eugeni.stepanov at gmail.com > wrote: > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 12:41 AM, Alexey Samsonov <vonosmas at gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I consider reducing the usage of blacklist in sanitizer instrumentation > > passes and doing the necessary work in frontend (Clang) instead. > > > > Some

(+correct cfe-dev list) On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Alexey Samsonov <vonosmas at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Yuri, > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Yury Gribov via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer currently does not check for undefined >> behaviors which result from improper usage

On 06/06/2014 02:33, Alexey Samsonov wrote: > Hi Alp, > > This warning should be fixed by r210301. However, consider > investigating why the frame size appears to be that large. I believe > we build this code with GCC as well and have seen no complaints > from its implementation of -Wframe-larger-than. CC'ing in llvmdev. Like Chandler said it could just be due to lack of

On 01/13/2016 03:10 AM, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > FTR, here is one way to implement this in the library: > https://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/google/gcc-4_9/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_algo.h > Search for "check sort predicate for strict weak ordering" Nice, although this wouldn't catch violations of transitivity (which is probably the most important type of bug).

On 01/13/2016 09:57 AM, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 10:28 PM, Yury Gribov <y.gribov at samsung.com> wrote: > >> On 01/13/2016 03:10 AM, Kostya Serebryany wrote: >> >>> FTR, here is one way to implement this in the library: >>> >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/google/gcc-4_9/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_algo.h

Hi all, TL;DR 1) We should change the way we parse common runtime flags in sanitizers. 2) We should make ASan aware of the tools it can be combined with (LSan and UBSan). 3) We may have to restrict the tools UBSan can be combined with (currently to ASan) (see [1]) Currently we have two kinds of sanitizer runtime flags: tool-specific flags and "common flags", defined in sanitizer_common

Inviting Paul to the party (he wrote the libstdc++ sort checker <https://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/google/gcc-4_9/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_algo.h> ). On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:09 PM, Yury Gribov <y.gribov at samsung.com> wrote: > On 01/13/2016 10:08 AM, Yury Gribov wrote: > >> On 01/13/2016 09:57 AM, Kostya Serebryany wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jan 12,

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 2:00 AM, Alexander Potapenko <glider at google.com> wrote: > Hope you're assuming there's always a single copy of common_flags in > the process. > This isn't the case for e.g. ASan+UBSan on Mac, but that's a broken setup. > > What if we let the tools protect specific flags (by adding a bool to > each flag) once they set their values

Hi all, UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer currently does not check for undefined behaviors which result from improper usage of standard library functions. One notorious instance of such errors is invalid usage of qsort or bsearch routines (or std::sort and friends in case of C++): * using comparison function that violates ordering axioms (reflexivity, symmetry, transitivity) * returning unstable

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Alexey Samsonov <vonosmas at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 1:50 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Alexey Samsonov via cfe-dev < >> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> I mostly agree with what Richard and Justin

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:11 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 8:45 AM, David

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:34 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:11 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Sean Silva

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:21 PM Alexey Samsonov <vonosmas at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:17 PM Alexey Samsonov <vonosmas at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> We have out-of-tree implementation of llvm-symbolizer-as-a-library,

+llvm-commits (correct list) On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Alexey Samsonov <vonosmas at gmail.com> wrote: > Could you describe the build failures you see after applying this patch? > I'll let Chris judge if adding -Wl,-syslibroot makes sense for iossim, or > that problem should be solved differently. > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Alex Wang via llvm-dev <

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 8:45 AM, David Blaikie via cfe-dev < > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Alexey Samsonov <vonosmas at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 11,

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Alexey Samsonov via cfe-dev < cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I mostly agree with what Richard and Justin said. Adding a few notes about > the general strategy we use: > > (1) lit tests which look "end-to-end" proved to be way more convenient for > testing runtime libraries than unit tests. > We do have > the latter, and

> On Feb 26, 2016, at 2:10 PM, Alexey Samsonov via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:34 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com <mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com>> wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com <mailto:chisophugis at gmail.com>> wrote: > > >

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:17 PM Alexey Samsonov <vonosmas at gmail.com> wrote: > We have out-of-tree implementation of llvm-symbolizer-as-a-library, and I > still hope to upstream it one day (unfortunately, its build process is > really complicated). > > Mike can probably comment on his plans for using symbolization in > coverage-related tools. > > On Wed, Oct 21,

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 1:29 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > On Thu Dec 11 2014 at 2:16:00 AM Alexey Samsonov <vonosmas at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Jonathan Roelofs < >> jonathan at codesourcery.com> wrote: >> >>> I think the send-email part of phab has yet to come back up. >>>

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Alexey Samsonov <vonosmas at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:34 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:11 PM, David Blaikie