Re: Issue 350 in address-sanitizer: LLVM sanitizer-bootstrap bot failing

2014-10-03 Thread address-sanitizer
Updates: Owner: samso...@google.com Cc: -samso...@google.com euge...@google.com Comment #3 on issue 350 by euge...@google.com: LLVM sanitizer-bootstrap bot failing https://code.google.com/p/address-sanitizer/issues/detail?id=350 It's become a lot worse since UBSan was enabled

Re: Issue 350 in address-sanitizer: LLVM sanitizer-bootstrap bot failing

2014-10-03 Thread address-sanitizer
Comment #2 on issue 350 by euge...@google.com: LLVM sanitizer-bootstrap bot failing https://code.google.com/p/address-sanitizer/issues/detail?id=350 We could use this "job pool" feature of cmake+ninja: http://www.cmake.org/cmake/help/v3.0/prop_gbl/JOB_POOLS.html Will probably need to upgrade

Re: Issue 350 in address-sanitizer: LLVM sanitizer-bootstrap bot failing

2014-10-02 Thread address-sanitizer
Comment #1 on issue 350 by samso...@google.com: LLVM sanitizer-bootstrap bot failing https://code.google.com/p/address-sanitizer/issues/detail?id=350 Don't know. Maybe, instrumented binaries with debug info are just much larger, so linking them requires more memory. -- You received this m

Issue 350 in address-sanitizer: LLVM sanitizer-bootstrap bot failing

2014-10-02 Thread address-sanitizer
Status: Accepted Owner: euge...@google.com CC: samso...@google.com Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium New issue 350 by euge...@google.com: LLVM sanitizer-bootstrap bot failing https://code.google.com/p/address-sanitizer/issues/detail?id=350 I see multiple ld processes, each takes from 1 to 4 Gb