similar to: Test failures building RELEASE_3.9.0/final

I ran "ninja check-asan" and no errors. But "ninja check-msan" had 117 errors. I took the first FAILED test, which was for eventfd.cc, and executed the command line creating an eventfd executable in a temporary directory and then executed that file using gdb. Finally, used bt to dump the stack. I've emailed llvm-admin at lists.llvm.org to setup an account since

I've compiled REALEASE_390/final but all "ninja check-msan" tests are failing (http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-September/104609.html) I'm waiting for an account to be created to file a bug, but in the mean time I thought I'd take a look at it myself. My system is an Arch Linux system that is up to date as of this morning: $ uname -a Linux wink-desktop

First off, thanks -- this is a pretty great library and it feels like I'm learning a lot. I'm getting some more experience with libfuzzer and finding that I have a couple of questions: - How does libfuzzer decide to write a new test file? What distinguishes this one from all the other cases for which new test inputs were not written? Must be something about the path taken through the

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 8:08 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Brian Cain via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> >> First off, thanks -- this is a pretty great library and it feels like I'm >> learning a lot. >> > > Thanks! > > >> I'm getting some

Hello, I'm quite new to LLVM, but I'm interested in memory sanitizer. The petty thing is, that 32bit addressing on Linux is not supported. Thus I tried to take the latest version of the software and to modify it, using Ubuntu 16.04 as operating system. Given the example example.c: #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> int main(int argc, char **argv) { int *a = (int

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

Ah ha! I found crash reports: green-dragon-03:DiagnosticReports buildslave$ cat mmap_stress.cc.tmp_2016-01-19-231335_green-dragon-03.crash Process: mmap_stress.cc.tmp [95010] Path: /Users/USER/*/mmap_stress.cc.tmp Identifier: mmap_stress.cc.tmp Version: 0 Code Type: X86-64 (Native) Parent Process: bash [95004] User ID:

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,

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 ::

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Chris Matthews <chris.matthews at apple.com> wrote: > I worded that poorly, the Jenkins check I added will explain to the user > that we know this fails sometimes. > > On Jan 20, 2016, at 1:30 PM, Chris Matthews <chris.matthews at apple.com> > wrote: > > I have added a Jenkins check for this test, which explains why it fails on

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 :: Integer/div-zero.cpp UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer :: Integer/sub-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

> 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

Dear testers, Release Candidate 2 has just been tagged [1]. Please build, test, and upload to the sftp. I know there are still outstanding issues from RC1, but there have been a lot of merges going into the branch and I think it's time for another round of RC testing. This RC comes a little behind schedule, sorry about that, but I'm still optimistic about hitting the target of releasing

Hi Sanitizer Runtime Developers, We recently ran into a problem building clang because some of the definitions in sanitizer_common conflicted with system definitions and later another system header was trying to use the system definition: .../usr/include/libkern/OSAtomicDeprecated.h:756:17: error: reference to 'memory_order_relaxed' is ambiguous __theAmount, memory_order_relaxed) +