On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Kostya Serebryany <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:07 AM, Timur Iskhodzhanov <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I'd like Kostya to comment. >> >> Green bots are no doubt better than red bots or no bots, but I'm not sure >> what level of ARM support our team has committed to. >> > > I'f we've broke something on a public bot we better fix it or roll it back > (and then fix it) > Could "-fdefine-sized-deallocation" help here? This enforces sized-deallocation with weak definitions. > > >> >> On Mon Feb 23 2015 at 1:43:10 PM Renato Golin <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On 23 February 2015 at 10:05, Timur Iskhodzhanov <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > Kostya, what's our policy re: ARM sanitizer bots failures? >>> >>> Timur, >>> >>> As far as ARM buildbots are concerned, any breakage is critical. ARM, >>> like Intel, is a first-class architecture and we have to support it >>> fully. Whatever the buildbots pass today, they should pass tomorrow. >>> If we break that contract for one buildbot, we break for all of them, >>> and that is not acceptable. >>> >>> Your commit broke our bots by exposing a flaw in the sanitizer on the >>> ARM architecture. The correct way to deal with this is to revert the >>> patch and contact the bot owner, in this case, me, to fix the issue. I >>> can help you debug and even allow you into an ARM box at my house so >>> that you can do your tests, but as soon as we start marking >>> previously-passing tests as XFAIL or ignore broken bots, there will be >>> no stopping, and the quality of the whole toolchain will diminish. >>> >>> At Linaro, we have people working on both the address and the thread >>> sanitizers, and they can also work with you to fix the issue. >>> >>> >>> > This is a second revert in a row. >>> >>> I haven't reverted yet, just contacted the author of the patch to fix >>> it. If it's not possible to fix, or if other bugs start creeping in >>> (like was the case with your patch), I will revert them to help fix >>> the buildbot back to green. Another reason for reverting a patch that >>> is breaking a bot, is time. If the author doesn't respond in a day >>> after the initial breakage, we will revert the patch. That's standard >>> practice across all LLVM components / architectures. >>> >>> This may sound harsh, but a lot can happen in a day. This particular >>> failure is a clear demonstration of that, as it got introduced and >>> Larisse couldn't know, since the bot was already red. >>> >>> >>> > (see also r230019 where the failure happened after a trivial change) >>> >>> That trivial change has triggered a real bug in the sanitizer, and we >>> need to get at the bottom of that. >>> >>> According to the LLVM Developer Policy, patches submitted must not >>> regress on the make check or the test-suite on all supported >>> platforms. ARM is a supported platform for both Compiler-RT and ASAN, >>> so we should not regress. >>> >>> More importantly, you probably found a real bug in ASAN, and we should >>> be discussing how to fix *that*, instead of what's the policy on >>> reverting sanitizer changes because it fails on a platform that you're >>> not familiar with. >>> >>> cheers, >>> --renato >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
