similar to: Docs for leak checker (and other sanitizers)?

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > Most likely, you need > https://github.com/google/sanitizers/wiki/AddressSanitizerLeakSanitizer Thanks! > I don't think lsan supports this mode directly, > but why do you think that the init-time allocations are going to be > "leaked"? > If there is some object still pointing to

Hi, Currently the first stage ("run sanitizer tests in gcc build") of the sanitizer-ppc64-linux1 buildbot is only failing because of: + cd clang_build + make -j16 check-lsan make: *** No rule to make target `check-lsan'. Stop. + echo @@@STEP_FAILURE@@@ @@@STEP_FAILURE@@@ + cd clang_build + make -j16 check-msan make: *** No rule to make target `check-msan'. Stop. + echo

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

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

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 everyone, I ran into a false positive with memory sanitizer due to it not intercepting dlinfo. I tried to get started on writing such an interceptor, but dlinfo seems like an extraordinarily difficult function to intercept. The three considerations that I would like somebody to look at are: 1) How do we get the enum values to decide what kind of pointer dlinfo is getting. Ideally we'd

Thanks! I'll try that. In order to avoid starting a new thread, let me ask you the next question. One of the shared libraries I load calls strtol and msan fails to intercept it. Why would this be? The library seems to be otherwise implemented. One of the potential culprits I saw is that strtol is marked as strong in libc. Is there any workaround? Keno On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Evgeniy

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

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

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

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 ::

> 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

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

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 ::

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

I blame this line in lsan/lit_tests/lit.cfg: # Setup attributes common for all compiler-rt projects. compiler_rt_lit_cfg = os.path.join(llvm_src_root, "projects", "compiler-rt", "lib", "lit.common.cfg") On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Alexey Samsonov <samsonov at google.com>wrote: > > On Fri, May 24,

Hi, I'm seeming new regressions form 4.0.0 for mips big endian: DataFlowSanitizer-mips64 :: custom.cc DataFlowSanitizer-mips64 :: propagate.c SanitizerCommon-asan-mips-Linux :: sanitizer_coverage_trace_pc_guard-dso.cc SanitizerCommon-asan-mips-Linux :: sanitizer_coverage_trace_pc_guard.cc SanitizerCommon-asan-mips64-Linux :: Linux/getpwnam_r_invalid_user.cc

Hi, I'm currently trying to find and fix memory leaks (compiling with ``-fsanitize=address``) in the KLEE tool [1] an having found some leaks and I'm having trouble suppressing them. I'm trying to suppress them using the ``-fsanitize-blacklist=blacklist.txt`` option as documented at [2]. I'm using Clang 3.7 ( Arch Linux package 3.7.0-6). The sort of reported leaks I see are ```

> Android runtime is special, we build it in a separate build tree configured with > -DCMAKE_TOOLCHAIN_FILE=$LLVM_CHECKOUT/cmake/platforms/Android.cmake This worked great, thanks! Would you mind tweaking Android.cmake so that I can override the location of the C compiler? The current version forces me to use the just-built-clang and that the new build directory be in a sibling directory.

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