On Thu, 23 Dec 2021 at 13:10, Martin Liška wrote:
> >> On 11/22/21 20:01, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> >>> I've already reverted the change. So I will include a fix into the next
> >>> version.
> >>> Thanks for notifying.
> >>
> >> Hello.
> >>
> >> Am I correct that the patch set is installed again?
On 11/30/21 05:17, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 at 19:16, Martin Liška wrote:
On 11/22/21 20:01, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
I've already reverted the change. So I will include a fix into the next version.
Thanks for notifying.
Hello.
Am I correct that the patch set is installed
On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 at 19:16, Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 11/22/21 20:01, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > I've already reverted the change. So I will include a fix into the next
> > version.
> > Thanks for notifying.
>
> Hello.
>
> Am I correct that the patch set is installed again? Any near future
On 11/22/21 20:01, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
I've already reverted the change. So I will include a fix into the next version.
Thanks for notifying.
Hello.
Am I correct that the patch set is installed again? Any near future plans for
another
revert of the patch? Do you think it's the right time to
On Tue, 23 Nov 2021 at 17:16, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Dmitry Vyukov:
>
> > On Tue, 23 Nov 2021 at 14:59, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >>
> >> * Dmitry Vyukov:
> >>
> >> > Or what kind of integration do you mean? Tsan did not have any direct
> >> > integration and worked with unmodified glibc.
>
* Dmitry Vyukov:
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2021 at 14:59, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>
>> * Dmitry Vyukov:
>>
>> > Or what kind of integration do you mean? Tsan did not have any direct
>> > integration and worked with unmodified glibc.
>>
>> I thought there is a false-positive data race report if an
On Tue, 23 Nov 2021 at 14:59, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Dmitry Vyukov:
>
> > Or what kind of integration do you mean? Tsan did not have any direct
> > integration and worked with unmodified glibc.
>
> I thought there is a false-positive data race report if an initial-exec
> or local-exec TLS
* Dmitry Vyukov:
> Or what kind of integration do you mean? Tsan did not have any direct
> integration and worked with unmodified glibc.
I thought there is a false-positive data race report if an initial-exec
or local-exec TLS variable is reused (whose memory is not managed by
malloc).
Thanks,
On Tue, 23 Nov 2021 at 14:49, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Dmitry Vyukov via Gcc:
>
> > I wanted to give heads up regarding a significant re-design of the
> > ThreadSanitizer runtime:
> > https://reviews.llvm.org/D112603
> > Currently it's submitted:
> >
* Dmitry Vyukov via Gcc:
> I wanted to give heads up regarding a significant re-design of the
> ThreadSanitizer runtime:
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D112603
> Currently it's submitted:
> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/1784fe0532a69ead17793bced060a9bf9d232027
> but can well be rolled
On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 at 20:08, Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 11/22/21 20:00, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > Not sure about gcc, but in clang the old no_sanitize_thread attribute
> > disabled only part of instrumentation (only memory accesses, but not
> > atomics and function entry/exit). The new attribute
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 08:00:38PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> Not sure about gcc, but in clang the old no_sanitize_thread attribute
> disabled only part of instrumentation (only memory accesses, but not
> atomics and function entry/exit). The new attribute disables all
> instrumentation.
In
On 11/22/21 20:00, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
Not sure about gcc, but in clang the old no_sanitize_thread attribute
disabled only part of instrumentation (only memory accesses, but not
atomics and function entry/exit). The new attribute disables all
instrumentation.
And what about
On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 at 19:38, Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 11/22/21 16:22, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > I wanted to give heads up regarding a significant re-design of the
> > ThreadSanitizer runtime:
> > https://reviews.llvm.org/D112603
> > Currently it's submitted:
> >
On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 at 19:31, Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 11/22/21 16:22, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > Hi gcc developers,
>
> Hello.
>
> >
> > I wanted to give heads up regarding a significant re-design of the
>
> Thanks for it.
>
> > ThreadSanitizer runtime:
> > https://reviews.llvm.org/D112603
> >
On 11/22/21 16:22, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
I wanted to give heads up regarding a significant re-design of the
ThreadSanitizer runtime:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D112603
Currently it's submitted:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/1784fe0532a69ead17793bced060a9bf9d232027
And I noticed the
On 11/22/21 16:22, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
Hi gcc developers,
Hello.
I wanted to give heads up regarding a significant re-design of the
Thanks for it.
ThreadSanitizer runtime:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D112603
Currently it's submitted:
Hi gcc developers,
I wanted to give heads up regarding a significant re-design of the
ThreadSanitizer runtime:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D112603
Currently it's submitted:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/1784fe0532a69ead17793bced060a9bf9d232027
but can well be rolled back if too many
18 matches
Mail list logo
