Hi,
I think I should ping for this patch now: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-01/msg00599.html note that by mistake the change log referenced sanitizer.c instead of sanitizer.def, consider that fixed on my local copy. Thanks Bernd. > Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 14:15:54 +0100 > > Hi, > > > > On Sun, 4 Jan 2015 14:54:56, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >> >> Hi Jakub, >> >> >> I think I have found a reasonable test case, see the attached patch file. >> The use case is: a class that destroys an owned thread in the destructor. >> The destructor sets the vptr again to thread::vptr but this should >> _not_ trigger a diagnostic message, when the vptr does not really change. >> >> Jakub, this is another test case where the TREE_READONLY prevents >> the tsan instrumentation. So I had first to install your patch: >> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg01432.html >> >> ... to see the test case fail without my patch. >> > > that has been installed in the meantime. > >> The patch installs cleanly on 4.9 and 4.8, however the 4.8 branch >> has no tsan tests, so I would leave the test case away for 4.8. >> > > I found, 4.8 does not have BT_FN_VOID_PTR_PTR, and no tsan tests > at all, so it is probably not worth the effort. > >> Boot-strapped and regression-tested on x86_64-linux-gnu >> OK for trunk and 4.9 + 4.8 branches? >> >> >> Thanks >> Bernd. >> >> > > I found some test cases in the clang tree, about the __tsan_vptr_update. > So I thought I should use these instead of inventing new ones. > > Attached you'll find an updated patch with one positive and one negative > test for vptr races. > > Tested with x86_64-linux-gnu. > OK for trunk and 4.9 after a while? > > > Thanks > Bernd. >
