As for the libsanitizer update process, I suggest to move the
discussion to http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55376
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Konstantin Serebryany
<konstantin.s.serebry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Andrew Pinski <pins...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Konstantin Serebryany
>> <konstantin.s.serebry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 7:10 PM, David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> wrote:
>>>> From: Konstantin Serebryany <konstantin.s.serebry...@gmail.com>
>>>> Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 19:01:56 -0800
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> The maintainer of the sanitizer's job is to do the merging and resolve
>>>> the conflicts between the two trees. This is how every other similar
>>>> situation is handled.
>>>
>>> I am new to the gcc community and may not know all the rules.
>>> But your nice words (lunacy, garbage, etc) are not helping us.
>>>
>>> As for the particular problem, I did not even see a patch (did I miss
>>> it? Sorry, I am just back from a long trip)
>>> I'd prefer to mention the ARCHs explicitly where possible, i.e.
>>> #if defined(__x86_64__) || definde (__sparc64__)
>>> instead of
>>> #if __WORDSIZE == 64 || ...
>>
>> How about splitting this into a different config directory right now.
>
> Hm?
> I don't think this is worth it, also we want the code to work for all
> supported platforms in the LLVM tree too.
>
> My proposed patch is this:
>
> Index: sanitizer_linux.cc
> ===================================================================
> --- sanitizer_linux.cc (revision 168278)
> +++ sanitizer_linux.cc (working copy)
> @@ -31,12 +31,22 @@
> #include <unistd.h>
> #include <errno.h>
>
> +// Are we using 32-bit or 64-bit syscalls?
> +// We need to list the 64-bit architecures explicitly because for x32
> +// (which defines __x86_64__) we have __WORDSIZE == 32,
> +// but we still need to use 64-bit syscalls.
> +#if defined(__x86_64__) || defined(__powerpc64__) || defined(__sparc64__)
> +# define SANITIZER_LINUX_USES_64BIT_SYSCALLS 1
> +#else
> +# define SANITIZER_LINUX_USES_64BIT_SYSCALLS 1
> +#endif
> +
> namespace __sanitizer {
>
> // --------------- sanitizer_libc.h
> void *internal_mmap(void *addr, uptr length, int prot, int flags,
> int fd, u64 offset) {
> -#if defined __x86_64__
> +#if SANITIZER_LINUX_USES_64BIT_SYSCALLS
> return (void *)syscall(__NR_mmap, addr, length, prot, flags, fd, offset);
> #else
> return (void *)syscall(__NR_mmap2, addr, length, prot, flags, fd, offset);
> @@ -69,7 +79,7 @@
> }
>
> uptr internal_filesize(fd_t fd) {
> -#if defined __x86_64__
> +#if SANITIZER_LINUX_USES_64BIT_SYSCALLS
> struct stat st;
> if (syscall(__NR_fstat, fd, &st))
> return -1;
> @@ -95,7 +105,7 @@
>
> // ----------------- sanitizer_common.h
> bool FileExists(const char *filename) {
> -#if defined __x86_64__
> +#if SANITIZER_LINUX_USES_64BIT_SYSCALLS
> struct stat st;
> if (syscall(__NR_stat, filename, &st))
> return false;
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Maybe I will do this later today. This is what was needed when it was
>> merged into GCC rather than all of these #ifdef all over the code.
>>
>> Look at how either libgomp or even glibc handles cases like this.
>> They have include directories which is based on the target and maybe
>> even a common directory which each target can over ride it (glibc is
>> the best at doing this).
>>
>> The whole double review process is hard for the target maintainers of
>> GCC to work really. Target maintainers in GCC is not normally like an
>> extra review step as it does slow down the whole process of getting a
>> target patch reviewed.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Andrew Pinski
>>
>>>
>>> --kcc
>>>
>>>>
>>>> What's happening here, frankly, is garbage.
>>>>
>>>> The current situation is unacceptable and HJ's fix should go into the
>>>> GCC tree right now.
>>>>
>>>> The current situation is preventing people from getting work done, and
>>>> unnecessarily consuming developer resources.
