Hi, On 19 October 2017 at 13:17, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 02:07:24PM +0300, Maxim Ostapenko wrote: >> > Is the patch (the merge + this incremental) ok for trunk? >> >> I think the patch is OK, just wondering about two things: > > Richi just approved the patch on IRC, so I'll commit, then we can deal with > follow-ups. >
Does anyone else run these tests on arm? Since you applied this patch, I'm seeing lots of new errors and timeouts. I have been ignoring regression reports for *san because of yyrandomness in the results, but the timeouts are a major inconvenience in testing because it increases latency a lot in getting results, or worse I get no result at all because the validation job is killed before completion. Looking at some intermediate logs, I have noticed: ==24797==AddressSanitizer CHECK failed: /libsanitizer/asan/asan_poisoning.cc:34 "((AddrIsAlignedByGranularity(addr))) != (0)" (0x0, 0x0) #0 0x408d7d65 in AsanCheckFailed /libsanitizer/asan/asan_rtl.cc:67 #1 0x408ecd5d in __sanitizer::CheckFailed(char const*, int, char const*, unsigned long long, unsigned long long) /libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_termination.cc:77 #2 0x408d22d5 in __asan::PoisonShadow(unsigned long, unsigned long, unsigned char) /libsanitizer/asan/asan_poisoning.cc:34 #3 0x4085409b in __asan_register_globals /libsanitizer/asan/asan_globals.cc:368 #4 0x109eb in _GLOBAL__sub_I_00099_1_ten (/aci-gcc-fsf/builds/gcc-fsf-gccsrc-thumb/obj-arm-none-linux-gnueabi/gcc3/gcc/testsuite/gcc/alloca_big_alignment.exe+0x109eb) in MANY (193 in gcc) tests. and many others (152 in gcc) just time out individually (eg c-c++-common/asan/alloca_instruments_all_paddings.c) with no error in the logs besides Dejagnu's WARNING: program timed out. Since I'm using an apparently unusual setup, maybe I have to update it to cope with the new version, so I'd like to know if others are seeing the same problems on arm? I'm using qemu -R 0 to execute the test programs, encapsulated by proot (similar to chroot, but does not require root privileges). Am I missing something obvious? Thanks, Christophe >> 1) We have a bunch of GCC local patches, did you include them into a >> cumulative patch (I guess yes)? > > I have done some verification today, diff from upstream r285547 to unpatched > GCC (with the LLVM Compiler infrastructure two liners removed), attached P1, > and diff from upstream r315899 to patched GCC (again, two liners removed), > attached P2 and went through the changes in P1 and verified that except for > the ubsan backwards compatibility we had that can't work anymore everything > else was upstreamed, or remained in P2. So P2 is the current diff from > upstream, with the sanitizer_common/sanitizer_symbolizer_libbacktrace.cc > changes now filed upstream. > >> 2) Upstream has enabled LSan for x86 and ARM, is it worth to enable them in >> GCC too? > > Maybe, feel free to post patches. For LSan we need to split off lsan_preinit > out of liblsan and link it into executables, will handle it next (there is a > PR about it, just wanted to wait until the merge is in). > > Jakub