http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56128
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-02-11 13:13:14 UTC --- (In reply to comment #11) > > We need more than that. E.g. ppc64 asan is very much broken in the gcc > > tree, > > that is fixed in upstream libasan already, right? > > Last time I tried, basic tests passed on ppc64 with 44 address space (did not > checke with 46 AS). http://ppc.koji.fedoraproject.org/packages/gcc/4.8.0/0.10.fc19/data/logs/ppc64/build.log shows lots of failures. Guess it is possible those boxes use 46-bit AS. > Ok, I'll do the merge after the scanf stuff is in. Thanks. > > BTW, any progress with the 0x7fff8000 shadow offset for x86_64? > > Not yet. Hopefully will try it this week. Looking forward to those results. > > > If it looks > > good benchmark-wise, I think it would be better if we switched the ASAN > > x86_64 > > ABI for GCC sooner (read, before 4.8) than have one asan ABI for 4.8 built > > objects and another one for 4.9 built objects (which is still possible that > > it > > will happen, but it wouldn't hurt to avoid that). > > Agree. How much time do we have? Not too much time, I guess if the real change on the gcc + libsanitizer side will be tweaking a few constants, it can be done within next few weeks, but preferably in February. A full libsanitizer merge should be this or next week, so that we have time to handle with any fallout of that (but at that point already just selective backports).
