similar to: [LLVMdev] Issue with std::call_once in PPC64 platform

Hi Bill, You can find the same issue in the buildbot: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-ppc64-elf-linux2/builds/16444/steps/compile.llvm.stage2/logs/stdio It is failing for me both in BE (gcc 4.8.2) and LE(4.9.1). I am compiling with clang 3.5, but those are the gcc toolchains I am using. What do you think is the best way to fix this? Thanks! Samuel Bill Schmidt <wschmidt at

Ok, I'll put a patch together to fix this later today. I'll probably do what Reid was suggesting and use what is already in there for Windows. Thanks, Samuel Bill Schmidt <wschmidt at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote on 11/04/2014 12:11:08 PM: > From: Bill Schmidt <wschmidt at linux.vnet.ibm.com> > To: Samuel F Antao/Watson/IBM at IBMUS > Cc: azanella at

Adding Jiangning Liu to the thread. Jiangning reported a similar issue on the llvm-commits list on Debian aarch64. In general it sounds like std::call_once may not really be bug free. Jiangning, can you please provide your gcc/libstdc++ version? Thanks, -Chris > On Nov 4, 2014, at 9:38 AM, Bill Schmidt <wschmidt at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 12:17

It seems the crash of llvm/clang build on aarch64 Debian has been fixed by r220941. Thanks, -Jiangning 2014-11-05 8:45 GMT+08:00 Jiangning Liu <liujiangning1 at gmail.com>: > The versions I'm using right now are > > * gcc: (Debian/Linaro 4.9.1-14) 4.9.1 > * libstdc++: libstdc++.so.6.0.20 > > Thanks, > -Jiangning > > 2014-11-05 4:46 GMT+08:00 Chris Bieneman

Hi, I'm trying to write a TSan interceptor for the C++11 call_once function. There are currently false positive reports, because the inner __call_once function is located in the (non-instrumented) libcxx library, and on macOS we can't expect the users to build their own instrumented libcxx. TSan already supports pthread_once and dispatch_once by having interceptors that re-implement the

> On 2 Sep 2016, at 11:18, Dmitry Vyukov via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Kuba Brecka <kuba.brecka at gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm trying to write a TSan interceptor for the C++11 call_once function. There are currently false positive reports, because the inner __call_once function is located in

> On 2 Sep 2016, at 12:11, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov at google.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Kuba Brecka <kuba.brecka at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 2 Sep 2016, at 11:18, Dmitry Vyukov via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Kuba Brecka <kuba.brecka at gmail.com>

Same problem exists, thread A can still be within REAL(call_once), but after it ran user code and set the flag to ~0. Roughly, call_once does: __call_once(flag, arg, func) { mutex_lock(mut); if (flag == BEING_INITIALIZED) { wait } else if (flag == NOT_INITIALIZED_AT_ALL) { flag = BEING_INITIALIZED; mutex_unlock(mut); func(arg); // <=== user code callback

The mutex could be made an actual global static instead of a ManagedStatic. This guarantees it would be constructed before main, and live until the end of main. So even in PassRegistry's destructor, which would get call during llvm_shutdown(), it would always have the same mutex. Ideally I'd like to just delete the mutex, as it doesn't seem like anyone is using it in a

On Mon, 2014-09-08 at 22:00 -0400, Samuel F Antao wrote: > Alexey, Alexander, > > Thanks for the suggestions. I tried removing the flag SA_NODEFER but > it didn't do any good... I have been digging into the problem with the > null_deref test today but I was unable to clearly identify the > problem. I suspect that it was either a bug with the calling > convention/unwinding

I actually had an idea about how to fix this in a relatively painless manner. Although given my experience over the past 4 days, it might not be best to call it painless without first trying :) The idea is to make a StaticPassRegistry. RegisterPass<> only touches the StaticPassRegistry, and nothing else touches the StaticPassRegistry. So once you enter main(), StaticPassRegistry can be

On 07/20/2012 10:35 AM, Will Schmidt wrote: > On Fri, 2012-07-20 at 08:36 +0200, Duncan Sands wrote: >> Hi Adhemerval Zanella, the old JIT infrastructure is going away, to be replaced >> by "MC-JIT" (try passing -use-mcjit to lli). It sounds like you are working on >> the old JIT, so I suggest you work instead on getting MC-JIT working on powerpc. > Hi Duncan,

On Fri, 2012-07-20 at 08:36 +0200, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Adhemerval Zanella, the old JIT infrastructure is going away, to be replaced > by "MC-JIT" (try passing -use-mcjit to lli). It sounds like you are working on > the old JIT, so I suggest you work instead on getting MC-JIT working on powerpc. Hi Duncan, Thanks for the pointers. We hadn't stumbled across the

On 07/31/2012 11:26 AM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote: > On 07/20/2012 10:35 AM, Will Schmidt wrote: >> On Fri, 2012-07-20 at 08:36 +0200, Duncan Sands wrote: >>> Hi Adhemerval Zanella, the old JIT infrastructure is going away, to be replaced >>> by "MC-JIT" (try passing -use-mcjit to lli). It sounds like you are working on >>> the old JIT, so I suggest

Note that I've set the SA_NODEFER flag for the SEGV handler in the ASan runtime only a couple of days ago. Not sure that could've affected this test though; without that flag the second SEGV would've simply crashed the program. But you can try removing the flag from compiler-rt/trunk/lib/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_posix_libcdep.cc and see if that makes any difference. HTH, Alex On

Hello, I am currently working with PPC64 JIT support for LLVM. So far I could make function calls work by adding function descriptors in 'lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCJITInfo.h' and adding a virtual method at 'LLVM::TargetJITInfo' that is called within 'JITEmitter::finishFunction' just after 'sys::Memory::InvalidateInstructionCache' to update the Global Mapping with

Hi all, I have been experiencing the failure of the address sanitizer regression tests for a PPC64 target (Power7 machine). My understanding is that most of the failures are related with the fact the stack is not being dumped. I tried to understand what might be wrong and started by looking into the null_deref.cc test as it hangs during the test run. I observe that after the detection of the

On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Samuel F Antao <sfantao at us.ibm.com> wrote: > Alexey, Alexander, > > Thanks for the suggestions. I tried removing the flag SA_NODEFER but it > didn't do any good... I have been digging into the problem with the > null_deref test today but I was unable to clearly identify the problem. I > suspect that it was either a bug with the

Hi Adhemerval Zanella, the old JIT infrastructure is going away, to be replaced by "MC-JIT" (try passing -use-mcjit to lli). It sounds like you are working on the old JIT, so I suggest you work instead on getting MC-JIT working on powerpc. Ciao, Duncan. > I am currently working with PPC64 JIT support for LLVM. So far I could make function calls > work by adding function

Hi Tim, Thanks for the thorough explanation. It makes perfect sense. I was not aware fast-math is supposed to prevent more precision being used than what is in the standard. I came across this issue while looking into the output or different compilers. XL and Microsoft compiler seem to have that turned on by default. But I assume that clang follows what gcc does, and have that turned off.