similar to: Using Multiple Sanitizers on one program

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

(+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).

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,

Hi there, I'm trying to use the memory sanitizer of LLVM 3.3. It's crashing during MSan initialization (__msan::InitShadow). Here's the strace output. mmap(0x400000000000, 35184372088831, PROT_NONE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_FIXED|MAP_ANONYMOUS|MAP_NORESERVE, -1, 0) = 0x400000000000 --- SIGSEGV {si_signo=SIGSEGV, si_code=SEGV_ACCERR, si_addr=0x55edf4b36720} --- +++ killed by SIGSEGV (core

Hello, I am currently porting memory sanitizer to a custom platform, and discovered some strange things in the existing implementation. 1. clang/llvm currently hardcode the list of supported platforms and disallow the use of a standalone msan implementation. I suppose the solution here is to submit a patch similar to https://reviews.llvm.org/D18865 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D18865>, which

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

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

> This is a public interface. But ASan runtime (and test-suite) strongly depends on > the instrumentation pass in Clang. How do you feel about adding a runtime init check of a version number defined by asan_interface.h? -Greg On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Alexey Samsonov <samsonov at google.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at

Hi, 1. This patch adds an internal (-mllvm) option, which is basically meant for debugging. If your custom platform has a target triple, you could submit changes to llvm, clang and compiler-rt to specify any platform-specific offsets and other details. 2. Blacklist is meant to disable checking for bugs in certain functions, not to remove all instrumentation. With ASan, these are the same. With

Sorry for the slow replies. I'm out on vacation this week. Alexey wrote: > If you want to test the sanitizer runtiume library "during development", > you should verify that it works with the Clang at hand. I want to test an implementation of libraries, not that clang links a library in its install directory. We only need one clang test for the latter (not 100) and that

Hi, 1. No, there is no custom triple for the platform. It currently uses Linux triple, and I do not think there is a possibility of upstreaming not so many changes in such a way. On the other side Apple uses the mllvm asan option to implement KASAN in XNU, so I think it will be fine to upstream a similar option, which I guess, could also be used for debugging, and may be helpful to other people

On 9/8/2013 11:48 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org>wrote: > >> Do you know if llvm itself gets tested as a complete build with the >> fsanitize options ? >> >> Enabling tsan seems to be a good idea too. >> > We test it very regularly with all of the sanitizers. We've not been

Does it build with libstdc++? I've got this with fresh clang, -std=c++11: In file included from ../projects/lld/lib/ReaderWriter/ELF/./SectionChunks.h:19: In file included from ../projects/lld/include/lld/Core/Parallel.h:28: In file included from /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.6/../../../../include/c++/4.6/condition_variable:38:

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

The sanitizer common and asan that mention 'thread' are failing for me this morning. How are your bots looking? Last good commit here was 512c616cacf70ca029a2bf719a482b902f3687cd. > You could try preprocessing your report with perl or sed to fix paths > to your binaries. It would be great to have an option for that in > asan_symbolize.py. > > As for addr2line, we just

On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>wrote: > On 31 January 2014 08:50, Alexey Samsonov <samsonov at google.com> wrote: > >> That is, I still don't see what the problem is - it's relatively easy to >> enable building just the compiler-rt library on ARM and not enable building >> sanitizers on ARM. >> > >

> By the way, locally, I now have just over half the ASan test suite > passing ARM-Linux via QEMU. Greg, Do you mean that you've added support for QEMU-based testing to sanitizer CMakeLists? That would be super-cool. -Y

Hi, # TL;DR I've been building an application with and without the address sanitizer (with gcc 5.3 and clang 3.7.1) and I've observed that the application's behaviour changes (assertion hit/ not hit). I'm wondering if this could be a bug in address sanitizer or if the application I'm running is just buggy (e.g. doing bad things like relying on memory layout, etc.). I'm

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