similar to: Comments sent via mail are not imported into Phabricator web

> On 2 Sep 2016, at 12:11, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov at google.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Kuba Brecka <kuba.brecka at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 2 Sep 2016, at 11:18, Dmitry Vyukov via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Kuba Brecka <kuba.brecka at gmail.com>

Same problem exists, thread A can still be within REAL(call_once), but after it ran user code and set the flag to ~0. Roughly, call_once does: __call_once(flag, arg, func) { mutex_lock(mut); if (flag == BEING_INITIALIZED) { wait } else if (flag == NOT_INITIALIZED_AT_ALL) { flag = BEING_INITIALIZED; mutex_unlock(mut); func(arg); // <=== user code callback

> On 2 Sep 2016, at 11:18, Dmitry Vyukov via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Kuba Brecka <kuba.brecka at gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm trying to write a TSan interceptor for the C++11 call_once function. There are currently false positive reports, because the inner __call_once function is located in

If you can find out whether it's possible with the latest phab, I can update our instance. On Tue, Jun 7, 2016, 9:15 PM Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > On 06/07/2016 09:14 PM, Kuba Brecka via llvm-dev wrote: > > From an unrelated thread: > > > >> ... This will need to be fixed before we can commit the patch. Since > >> Phabricator

On 02/02/2016 06:25 PM, Kuba Brecka via llvm-dev wrote: > Done in r259529. I unfortunately just got another failure, so this is clearly not darwin only or even low-noise on none-darwin platforms: http://lab.llvm.org:8080/green/job/clang-stage1-cmake-RA_check/9965/ I very much appreciate that people are investigating this issue, but it would be really nice to meanwhile disable this test

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov at google.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Kuba Brecka <jbrecka at apple.com> wrote: >> Hm, I tried to reproduce this as well, but unsuccessfully. From the crash >> report: EXC_I386_GPFLT means we’re dereferencing a non-canonical pointer, >> in this case “0x00486000000025df”. This happens at

Hi, I'm trying to write a TSan interceptor for the C++11 call_once function. There are currently false positive reports, because the inner __call_once function is located in the (non-instrumented) libcxx library, and on macOS we can't expect the users to build their own instrumented libcxx. TSan already supports pthread_once and dispatch_once by having interceptors that re-implement the

From an unrelated thread: > ... This will need to be fixed before we can commit the patch. Since Phabricator automatically closed http://reviews.llvm.org/D12761 <http://reviews.llvm.org/D12761>, I've created a new revision. The attached diff is a very a slightly modified version of your original patch ... I have wanted to reopen a Phabricator revision too many times already, but

Hi, I would like to improve the debugging experience for ASan. The idea is to have a couple of useful commands in LLDB (probably implemented as Python scripts) that could help the user when they are debugging an ASan-enabled binary. We already have some debugging API (asan_interface.h): // Print the description of addr (useful when debugging in gdb). void __asan_describe_address(void

Hm, I tried to reproduce this as well, but unsuccessfully. From the crash report: EXC_I386_GPFLT means we’re dereferencing a non-canonical pointer, in this case “0x00486000000025df”. This happens at wrap_OSSpinLockLock+17, which is just after the prologue and just after calling cur_thread(). So I’d say it happens when we’re dereferencing the pointer returned by cur_thread(). On OS X, we’re

On Aug 21, 2009, at 10:27 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> > wrote: >> >> On Aug 21, 2009, at 10:02 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Aug 21, 2009, at 8:46 PM, Eli

On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > On Aug 21, 2009, at 10:27 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Aug 21, 2009, at 10:02 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at

On Aug 21, 2009, at 10:02 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> > wrote: >> >> On Aug 21, 2009, at 8:46 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Aug 21, 2009, at 7:31 PM, Eli

On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > On Aug 21, 2009, at 10:02 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Aug 21, 2009, at 8:46 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at

On Aug 21, 2009, at 8:46 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> > wrote: >> >> On Aug 21, 2009, at 7:31 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello, >>>>

On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > On Aug 21, 2009, at 8:46 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Aug 21, 2009, at 7:31 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at

Hi Kuba, Thanks for your feedback. I have made some improvements on the proposal according to your feedback and clarify something on the time availability. I left comments on the questions you asked in the doc. Please check it out. Thanks, Chijun 2018-03-22 10:37 GMT+08:00 Jakub (Kuba) Kuderski <kubakuderski at gmail.com>: > Hi Chijun, > > I left you my feedback in the doc (+

Hello, When I try: @tagged_items = Problem.find_tagged_with :all => ''kuba'' or @tagged_items = Problem.tags_count :limit => 100 I get this error: ArgumentError in Volume#index wrong number of arguments (2 for 3) RAILS_ROOT: script/../config/.. Application Trace | Framework Trace | Full Trace

Hi llvm-dev, I have a C function: __attribute__((__visibility__("default"))) __attribute__((used)) __attribute__((noinline)) void please_do_not_optimize_me_away(int arg1, void *arg2) { asm volatile("" :::); } (the purpose is that this function will be used dynamically at runtime, perhaps by interposing the function, or via the debugger) I really thought this will not get

Hi Chijun, I left you my feedback in the doc (+ some nitpicks). Overall, it looks very solid and shows you understand the problem well and know what to expect. Your proposed timeline is reasonable and I don't see any major things to improve there. Don't hesitate to reach out if you have any questions related to my comments (either here or in the document). Thanks, Kuba On Wed, Mar 21,