similar to: [LLVMdev] UBSAN on Android.

On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 2:44 PM, sgundapa <sgundapa at codeaurora.org> wrote: > No. CMake has different way of treating the .S files > Refer to http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake/Assembler > > I have a patch which will make CMake treat the .S files as source files. > Let me guess, you should just call set_source_file_properties(<arm .S files> PROPERTIES LANGUAGE C)? >

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

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

On 8 July 2014 19:47, Alexey Samsonov <vonosmas at gmail.com> wrote: > compiler-rt/lib/builtins/arm/*.S files are listed in arm_SOURCES variable, > and therefore should make it into the builtins static library on ARM. Don't > they? I assume so... But I'm not an expert in CMake.

I noticed the compiler-rt/lib/builtins/CmakeLists.txt is not including the .S files in building clang_rt.builtins-arm.a We need to tell the CMake build system that the .S files are also the source files. Is there any intention behind leaving the .S files not to compile? If not, let me know and I will push a patch. --Sumanth G -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment

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).

(+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 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! UBSan bootstrap bot fails with error report on 5 llvm-cov and llvm-profdata lit-tests: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap/builds/4526/steps/check-llvm%20ubsan/logs/stdio Also see http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=20815. The error reports look vaild: in general it's incorrect to load uint64_t, or even structures like "RawHeader" or

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

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,

Is there any specific reason why the clang_rt.builtins-${arch} library is disabled for windows builds? if (NOT WIN32) foreach(arch x86_64 i386 arm) if(CAN_TARGET_${arch}) set_source_files_properties(${${arch}_SOURCES} PROPERTIES LANGUAGE C) add_compiler_rt_runtime(clang_rt.builtins-${arch} ${arch} STATIC SOURCES ${${arch}_SOURCES} CFLAGS

Hi, I see there is an inconsistency in LLVM libc calls. For a modulo (reminder) operation, clang -target arm-none-linux-gnueabi generates "__modsi3". clang -target arm-none-eabi generates "__aeabi_idivmod" clang -target arm-linux-androideabi generates "__modsi3" Android bionic libc doesn't provide a __modsi3, instead it provides

On 28 July 2015 at 17:52, Sumanth Gundapaneni <sgundapa at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Android bionic libc doesn’t provide a __modsi3, instead it provides > “__aeabi_idivmod”. Hi Sumanth, Have a look at ARMSubtarget.h, functions: bool isTargetAEABI() They control the lowering of DIV/MOD calls in ARMISelLowering.cpp. Maybe Android needs to be in? cheers, --renato

Here is a problem scenario. I want to enable a backend pass at -O2 or above. if (TM->getOptLevel() >= CodeGenOpt::Default) addPass(&xxxxx); This pass will be run at -O1 too since clang is creating the TargetMachine with CodeGenOpt::Default for -O1. --Sumanth G -----Original Message----- From: mehdi.amini at apple.com [mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com] Sent: Friday, January 6, 2017

On 7/16/14, 6:09 PM, sgundapa wrote: > I see a couple of issues here. > > If I include .S files for ARM, the –no-integrated-as path complains about > Assembler errors. > > The integrated-as path works fine though. > These are very likely just differences between the old ARM assembler syntax and the new 'Unified' syntax. Can you use an assembler that accepts UAL

Unfortunately, we do rely on the Autotools to build for darwin. The lack of proper testing is very unfortunate. In the future, we will either drop the dependency on Makefile/autoconf build or add the support for sanitizer testing. Anna. > On Feb 17, 2015, at 10:54 AM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > > +1 (in case you still need mine) > > On Thu, Feb 12,

Hi, I've noticed that certain parts of LLVM (RuntimeDyld, JIT) use unaligned memory accesses to load/store pointers or just 32- or 64-bit integers. Technically, this is undefined behavior, and UBSan reports errors when this happens. Even if we believe we're running some x86-specific code (e.g. RuntimeDyldELF::resolveX86_64Relocation) what matters for unaligned acceses in source code is

This morning I'm seeing 4 new sanitizer failures in SanitizerCommon-Unit (compared to a couple of days ago, when I didn't see these) - perhaps related to recent library refactoring? SanitizerCommon-Unit :: Sanitizer-i386-Test/DeadlockDetector.RemoveEdgesTest SanitizerCommon-Unit :: Sanitizer-i386-Test/SanitizerCommon.ThreadRegistryTest SanitizerCommon-Unit ::

Hi, AFAIK, the tools "symbolizer, objdump and nm" need a demangler. I see there is libcxxabi which provides the demangle library. But there is no support to build libcxxabi on windows with MSVC. This left a huge void and my symbolizer cannot work on Windows if built with MSVC. Instead of mucking around OS dependencies, why shouldn't we have a demangle library in LLVM.