On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 03:31:21AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 3:20 AM, Dodji Seketeli <do...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > Diego Novillo <dnovi...@google.com> a écrit: >> > >> >> Patches to libsanitizer should be sent upstream. We should only >> >> contain a copy of the master in the LLVM repository. There should be >> >> instructions in libsanitizer/README.gcc (Jakub, Dodji, are they there? >> >> I can't check ATM). >> > >> > No there are not, for the moment. README.gcc just says where the >> > sources the 'upstream' project is. >> > >> >> What is the plan to add GCC specific support: >> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55291 >> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55292 >> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55304 >> >> and >> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg00967.html > > CCing Wei, I don't know the details about the import. To me it looks like > that most or all of the libsanitizer/ level files (and > libsanitizer/*/Makefile.{am,in}) don't originate from > llvm/projects/compiler-rt/lib , so they should be owned by GCC and thus > should be changed to support multilibs, use the same libtool/autoconf/etc. > versions as rest of gcc etc. >
Agree. > For changes to the files actually imported from LLVM I guess it depends on > if google is going to accept such changes in the LLVM upstream. For > unsupported targets we want to add target-libsanitizer into noconfigdirs > in toplevel configure. > These would be files under libsanitizer/asan, libsanitizer/tsan, libsanitizer/sanitizer_common, libsanitizer/include directories. For changes in those directories, why not sending the patch to Kosyta and Dmitry, whom I assume will help review the patch and do the commit properly? > Note that just making libsanitizer to build on some architecture is not > enough for full ASAN support, one needs to also add the target hook with > mem>>3 to shadow offset, and I guess review all other spots where > libsanitizer uses __i386__ or __x86_64__ macros. > > I'd also say that using sanitizer_atomic_clang.h for GCC is not a good > idea, now that GCC 4.7+ has __atomic_* support that should be usable > for most of the __sanitizer::atomic* stuff. Right, but that can be changed. thanks, David > > Jakub
