similar to: [LLVMdev] ubsan and log_path?

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, 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

(+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 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, 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,

I've been working on adding UBSan support to CMake (so that errors found by it can be uploaded to CDash for viewing). One problem is that the message is very generic. The patch here addes 'UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer' to the message so that they may be detected more easily. If something else is wanted (such as the '===' lines from ASan or TSan to cope with things like printing

> 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

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

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

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

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

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 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

Is UBSAN on android for ARM target known to work? I know ASAN does work. --Sumanth G -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140723/9ea92700/attachment.html>

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 ::

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

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 ::

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