On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 4:14 PM, David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> wrote: > From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.to...@gmail.com> > Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 16:06:23 -0800 > >> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 4:04 PM, David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> wrote: >>> From: Eric Botcazou <ebotca...@adacore.com> >>> Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 00:18:15 +0100 >>> >>>> error: '__NR_mmap2' was not declared in this scope >>>> return (void *)syscall(__NR_mmap2, addr, length, prot, flags, fd, >>>> offset); >>> >>> The people making libsanitizer changes are really going to have to >>> stop making i386 specific changes to these generic files. >>> >>> Specifically, in this case, they are checking for whether mmap2 is >>> available using __x86_64__ cpp tests. A more appropriate test is >>> necessary. >>> >>> Oh nevermind, H.J. Liu added this build regression, I should have >>> known. >>> >>> H.J., either fix or revert this code back to using __WORDSIZE if you >>> cannot come up with an appropriate test. >> >> Please follow: >> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg00951.html > > The whole way this libsanitizer merge is being handled is > beyond unreasonable. > > A build fix being held up for 4 days just proves that requiring things > get merged into LLVM first is completely the wrong way for this stuff > to work.
I am open to suggestions on how to avoid forking the two versions. If we fork, the original asan team will not be able to cope with two repositories. --kcc > > The people who merged in this library should be responsible for > keeping changes in sync, not the individual developers who fix bugs > and make improvements to this code on the gcc side. > > It's lunacy that this build problem is in the tree for 4 days because > of this.