similar to: [LLVMdev] non-x86 sanitizer buildbots: no rule to make target check-lsan etc.

How about tweaking the compiler-rt cmakefiles so that if lsan is not supported, the target check-lsan still exists but does nothing? I've attached a patch that does this. (I don't know much about cmake so there might be a better way of doing it.) Alternatively, can I change the zorg build script so that "run sanitizer tests in gcc build" doesn't try to run check-lsan etc

Dear all, I am not sure whether this is a right place to ask basic questions about usage of CLang/LLVM, but also not sure if there is any other mailing list for such. Kindly point me to such a list in such case. I had built mainline CLang/LLVM on OSX and tried to use it with CMake. I had override following variables in CMake:

X32 support patch for compiler-rt. Applies against current trunk. --- projects/compiler-rt/make/platform/clang_linux.mk~ 2013-08-21 06:27:38.000000000 +0000 +++ projects/compiler-rt/make/platform/clang_linux.mk 2013-08-21 11:16:55.891621025 +0000 @@ -41,7 +41,18 @@ SupportedArches += x86_64 endif else - SupportedArches := x86_64 + # x86-64 arch has two ABIs 64 bit x86-64 and 32 bit

On Dec 25, 2013, at 11:55 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > Like this? > > +extern "C" { > +// Disable LeakSanitizer, see

Hi, We are trying to enable LeakSanitizer on our asan/msan llvm bootstrap bot (http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap/). In clang itself there are two leaks (http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=18318, http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2472) and one lsan-hostile feature (http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=18320), all of which are easy to fix. And there are also

On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 9:38 PM, dblaikie at gmail.com <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > Its generally been by design that tblgen leaks. Might be nice to fix one day > but it's been that way for a while now so don't expect it to be fixed soon. > > If thats the suppression mechanism of choice (I would've expected a build > flag option) for lsan, I'd say go for

Clang patch for X32 support. Applies against current trunk. --- ./tools/clang/include/clang/Driver/Options.td.orig 2013-05-16 21:51:51.286129820 +0000 +++ ./tools/clang/include/clang/Driver/Options.td 2013-05-16 21:53:24.875004239 +0000 @@ -841,6 +841,7 @@ HelpText<"Enable hexagon-qdsp6 backward compatibility">; def m3dnowa : Flag<["-"], "m3dnowa">,

LGTM. I think it is totally reasonable to just disable LSan directly in tablegen at least for now. I would leave some comments on the disabling to clarify: 1) What it does, the reader may not have heard about LSan. 2) Some of the high-level information from this thread as pointers for anyone who wants to go and fix this some day. -Chandler On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Kostya Serebryany

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

Hi, I'm working on bringing up complete coverage for a Gentoo x32 "desktop" system. I've been cooking up quite a few patches for various packages to push upstream, but right now, the biggest blocker is the lack of support for building with/codegen targeting x32 in llvm/clang. Since the x32 patches were sent last year, I see support code has landed in LLVM, and basic handling of

With reference to the following thread: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-January/094100.html I am having the same issue. First I did a git pull of all the relevant directories and then doing a cmake: cmake -DLLVM_ENABLE_DOXYGEN=ON -DLLVM_ENABLE_WERROR=OFF -DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD="X86" ../llvm and followed by make: [ 22%] Built target LLVMVectorize [ 25%] Built target

Hi everyone, (Sorry if I'm asking at the wrong mail listing, but compiler-rt page tells I'd better write on llvm-dev rather than cfe-dev/cfe-users.) I've just built LLVM/Clang+Compiler-rt (Compiler-rt is put inside llvm/projects folder) and tried the -fsanitize option. But strangely the link failed since it cannot find *libclang_rt.san-x86_64.a*. The error message is as

On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > Like this? > > +extern "C" { > +// Disable LeakSanitizer, see http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=18325. > We don't often reference bugs in comments. I would give a brief summary in the text of the comment, and mention the bug in the commit log. -------------- next part

Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> writes: > Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org> writes: > >> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 3:09 PM, David A. Greene <greened at obbligato.org> wrote: >>> Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> writes: >>> >>>> Okay, we can get rid of recursive make. However, as pointed out >>>> elsewhere, removing

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 04:48:51PM +0200, Sedat Dilek via llvm-dev wrote: > [ CCed all people who were involved in this thread ] > > Hi Tom, > > personally, I am interested to test the prebuilt-toolchains for > Ubuntu/xenial alias 16.04 LTS and Debian/Jessie v8.5.0 AMD64. > The available toolchains are incomplete and thus useless. > > Just as a fact: There is still no

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 ::

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

Hi, The test-suite expects to be built standalone but it looks like you have it in the same tree as LLVM. You'll need to remove it. From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Peter Teoh via llvm-dev Sent: 28 February 2016 14:31 To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] [3.8 Release] We have branched With reference to the following thread:

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 ::