similar to: gcc ubsan alignement test --minimal gcc version?

Dear Prof. Ripley, Thank you for your answer. I think I am way over my head here. (Using Doker adds a level of complexity that I'm afraid I can't manage for now so I am happy with building Rdevel and using it in to run these tests). After building Rdevel with what I think are the correct options** (just to avoid mistakes I have also fully removed R from my system just before and

On 13/10/2015 14:46, kaveh wrote: > Dear All, > > I'm trying to implement the section of the manual pertaining to the > gcc-ubsan test > carried by CRAN on my local computer (ubuntu 14.04): > > http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/pub/bdr/memtests/gcc-UBSAN/README.txt > > I was wondering whether someone could tell what the minimal version > of the gcc tool

CRAN has a package of mine in upload limbo because it failed UBSAN. I am not entirely ignorant on the topic of sanitizers and SAN / ASAN / UBSAN; we created not one but two Docker containers with ASAN and USBAN: https://registry.hub.docker.com/u/rocker/r-devel-san/ https://registry.hub.docker.com/u/rocker/r-devel-ubsan-clang/ as well as predecessors to them in earlier Docker repos. Yet I

Hello all! (+cc Vedant Kumar, who I've been told knows a lot about UBSan!) I am trying to fix an assert that occurs when the transforms in llvm/lib/Transforms/Coroutines are applied to LLVM IR that has been generated with UBSan enabled -- specifically, '-fsanitize=null'. You can see an example of the assert in this 26-line C++ file here: https://godbolt.org/g/Gw9UZq Note that

> On Mar 19, 2018, at 3:44 PM, Brian Gesiak <modocache at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello all! > (+cc Vedant Kumar, who I've been told knows a lot about UBSan!) > > I am trying to fix an assert that occurs when the transforms in llvm/lib/Transforms/Coroutines are applied to LLVM IR that has been generated with UBSan enabled -- specifically, '-fsanitize=null'. >

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

> I think your best bet for controlling code bloat is to compile with > -fsanitize=undefined -fsanitize-trap=undefined. Also you may not need all of UBSan's checks at the same time -- so pick and choose among its checks using the finer-grained flags. If you're really stuck against a hard limit on code size, try applying UBSan to a subset of files in your project at a time. John

(+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

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,

Hello, I'm investigating on enabling the Ubsan in my firmware. I have two questions about Ubsan: 1. I see the Ubsan run-time lib functions are defined in http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/compiler-rt/trunk/lib/ubsan/ubsan_interface.inc, but I cannot find how the LLVM implement the Ubsan instrumentations. I see the Asan's instrumentation lib is in

Dear all, bigKRLS, which has been on CRAN for a couple of years, had to be pulled recently due to what seems to be a sanitizer issue stemming from its use of bigmemory. bigKRLS works fine (we?ve used it ourselves on many different platforms and have had over 15,000 downloads without an end user reporting difficulties because of this issue). Unfortunately, we have been unable to reproduce the

> On Jul 21, 2017, at 6:04 AM, Shi, Steven via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >>> I think your best bet for controlling code bloat is to compile with >>> -fsanitize=undefined -fsanitize-trap=undefined. >> >> Also you may not need all of UBSan's checks at the same time -- so pick >> and choose among its checks using the

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

Thanks John, seems like a dynamic runtime instrumentation is then not a good idea. I had a look at the UBSan features in Clang and I might be able to use them instead. But it seems like that vector operations are not instrumented with overflow checks if I specify the option -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow. Am I missing some other option or is there a special reason why vector operations are not

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

Hi LLVM people, Not sure whether this is the best place to ask this. Given the source of a program, I would like to detect both uninitialized reads and out-of-bounds memory accesses. The latter can be done with the Address Sanitizer (ASan) and the first using the Memory Sanitizer (MSan). Is there a way to use both at the same time? The --fsanitize option only seems support one of these. What is

Quick question... asan/msan/tsan all call __sanitizer_set_report_path(common_flags()->log_path), but ubsan does not (which, in practice, seems to mean that you can't redirect the ubsan output anywhere but to the default logging path of stderr). Is there any reason why this can't happen, or it would be a bad idea? Thanks again, Hal -- Hal Finkel Assistant Computational Scientist

Hello, I have several low priority UBSan questions... (1) Is there a way for UBSan to print its output to a file that the user specified (e.g. via option) instead of dumping everything on stderr? (2) Out of curiosity, why is the name of the option for printing the stacktrace spelled "UBSAN_OPTIONS=print_stacktrace=1", though the allowed value is 1? Since the only one value is