On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 6:25 AM, Peter Bergner <berg...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > Doesn't look like the ppc32 port would be in any worse shape than the >> > 64-bit >> > one. >> > Peter has brought a real problem, in particular the allocator now newly >> > relying on >> > 2 x word size atomics which is definitely non-portable, I don't see why >> > the answer >> > to that should be disable your port or build a buildbot. > > Right, the ppc32 results definitely show it's on par with the ppc64 results. > > > On Mon, 2014-05-26 at 10:36 +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote: >> Because this is my default reply to any such case. :) > > I hope that is a humorous reply and not a serious one.
Not really humorous. Our position is and always was: "If you are adding support for a new architecture/platform, we encourage you to set up a public build bot, otherwise we can not guarantee that we will keep your code in working conditions." https://code.google.com/p/address-sanitizer/wiki/HowToContribute > In one of my other posts, I asked should 32-bit ports even attempt > to use the 2 * word_size atomics. What is the code doing such that > it wants to use a 2 * word_size atomic? Is it as simple as commenting > that code out for 32-bit builds of the library or do we really have > to support that? Frankly, I don't remember where asan can use 2 * word_size atomic. This might be some mistake in new code indeed. Do you see what function calls these atomics? --kcc > > Peter > >
