On Sat, 17 Dec 2022 06:39:48 GMT, Justin King wrote:
>> Allow building OpenJDK with UBSan. Currently the build fails when optimizing
>> the image due to lots of undefined behavior (it invokes the built JVM).
>> Follow up PRs will either replace the undefined behavior with well defined
>> behav
On Sat, 17 Dec 2022 06:39:48 GMT, Justin King wrote:
>> Allow building OpenJDK with UBSan. Currently the build fails when optimizing
>> the image due to lots of undefined behavior (it invokes the built JVM).
>> Follow up PRs will either replace the undefined behavior with well defined
>> behav
On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 16:10:10 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> Justin King has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Simplify logic for including __ubsan_default_options
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Justin King
>
> I much also check:
On Sat, 17 Dec 2022 06:39:48 GMT, Justin King wrote:
>> Allow building OpenJDK with UBSan. Currently the build fails when optimizing
>> the image due to lots of undefined behavior (it invokes the built JVM).
>> Follow up PRs will either replace the undefined behavior with well defined
>> behav
> Allow building OpenJDK with UBSan. Currently the build fails when optimizing
> the image due to lots of undefined behavior (it invokes the built JVM).
> Follow up PRs will either replace the undefined behavior with well defined
> behavior or suppress errors which are intentional. The goal is t
On Sat, 17 Dec 2022 06:33:43 GMT, Justin King wrote:
>> Allow building OpenJDK with UBSan. Currently the build fails when optimizing
>> the image due to lots of undefined behavior (it invokes the built JVM).
>> Follow up PRs will either replace the undefined behavior with well defined
>> behav
On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 15:56:44 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> However, I do think the included source files should be treated like the
> autoheaders, and reside in data rather than in `src`. The latter is intended
> for buildtools, even though they are a bit scattered at the moment (there is
>
> Allow building OpenJDK with UBSan. Currently the build fails when optimizing
> the image due to lots of undefined behavior (it invokes the built JVM).
> Follow up PRs will either replace the undefined behavior with well defined
> behavior or suppress errors which are intentional. The goal is t
On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 10:42:22 GMT, Justin King wrote:
>> Allow building OpenJDK with UBSan. Currently the build fails when optimizing
>> the image due to lots of undefined behavior (it invokes the built JVM).
>> Follow up PRs will either replace the undefined behavior with well defined
>> behav
On Fri, 9 Dec 2022 20:38:26 GMT, Erik Joelsson wrote:
>> make/autoconf/jdk-options.m4 line 450:
>>
>>> 448:
>>> ###
>>> 449: #
>>> 450: # UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer
>>
>> I think this logic fits better in `flags.m4`, o
On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 10:42:22 GMT, Justin King wrote:
>> Allow building OpenJDK with UBSan. Currently the build fails when optimizing
>> the image due to lots of undefined behavior (it invokes the built JVM).
>> Follow up PRs will either replace the undefined behavior with well defined
>> behav
On Tue, 13 Dec 2022 16:55:09 GMT, Robbin Ehn wrote:
> > I guess the advantage to putting this in the build machinery (as opposed to
> > using `--with-extra-cflags=-fsanitize=undefined
> > --with-extra-ldflags=-fsanitize=undefined`) is that we can turn some of
> > these onn by default once we'v
On Tue, 13 Dec 2022 13:45:04 GMT, Justin King wrote:
> Nope. Some targets end up passing C++ flags to the C compiler, causing a
> failure.
Ah right, we (mis)use CFLAGS (instead of CXXFLAGS) in some
SetupNativeCompilation calls when all source files are C++. In that case, your
suggested patch
On Tue, 13 Dec 2022 16:29:59 GMT, Justin King wrote:
> I guess the advantage to putting this in the build machinery (as opposed to
> using `--with-extra-cflags=-fsanitize=undefined
> --with-extra-ldflags=-fsanitize=undefined`) is that we can turn some of these
> onn by default once we've fixed
On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 10:42:22 GMT, Justin King wrote:
>> Allow building OpenJDK with UBSan. Currently the build fails when optimizing
>> the image due to lots of undefined behavior (it invokes the built JVM).
>> Follow up PRs will either replace the undefined behavior with well defined
>> behav
On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 10:42:22 GMT, Justin King wrote:
>> Allow building OpenJDK with UBSan. Currently the build fails when optimizing
>> the image due to lots of undefined behavior (it invokes the built JVM).
>> Follow up PRs will either replace the undefined behavior with well defined
>> behav
On Tue, 13 Dec 2022 08:17:09 GMT, Justin King wrote:
> I tried to use a single file, but the build logic attempts to compile as
> either C or C++ based on file extensions, and has logic based on it. So if I
> use `.cpp` and the target is all `.c` odd things happen. The same for the
> inverse.
On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 10:42:22 GMT, Justin King wrote:
>> Allow building OpenJDK with UBSan. Currently the build fails when optimizing
>> the image due to lots of undefined behavior (it invokes the built JVM).
>> Follow up PRs will either replace the undefined behavior with well defined
>> behav
On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 10:42:22 GMT, Justin King wrote:
>> Allow building OpenJDK with UBSan. Currently the build fails when optimizing
>> the image due to lots of undefined behavior (it invokes the built JVM).
>> Follow up PRs will either replace the undefined behavior with well defined
>> behav
On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 10:42:22 GMT, Justin King wrote:
>> Allow building OpenJDK with UBSan. Currently the build fails when optimizing
>> the image due to lots of undefined behavior (it invokes the built JVM).
>> Follow up PRs will either replace the undefined behavior with well defined
>> behav
On Tue, 13 Dec 2022 00:37:42 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
>> Primarily, but its not a requirement. We should also be able to invoke
>> `java` as is. The environment variables should be used to force specific
>> behavior for a single invocation. Otherwise, if one forgets to pass the
>> environment
On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 08:04:57 GMT, Justin King wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/native/launcher/main.c line 41:
>>
>>> 39: // extremely early during library loading, before main is called. We
>>> need to override the default
>>> 40: // options because by default UBSan only prints a warning for each
On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 09:58:54 GMT, Justin King wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/native/launcher/main.c line 49:
>>
>>> 47: #endif // UNDEFINED_BEHAVIOR_SANITIZER
>>> 48:
>>> 49: /*
>>
>> As I said we have more launcher than 'java', if you put this method here you
>> must put it in all launchers.
> Allow building OpenJDK with UBSan. Currently the build fails when optimizing
> the image due to lots of undefined behavior (it invokes the built JVM).
> Follow up PRs will either replace the undefined behavior with well defined
> behavior or suppress errors which are intentional. The goal is t
> Allow building OpenJDK with UBSan. Currently the build fails when optimizing
> the image due to lots of undefined behavior (it invokes the built JVM).
> Follow up PRs will either replace the undefined behavior with well defined
> behavior or suppress errors which are intentional. The goal is t
On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 09:50:33 GMT, Justin King wrote:
>> Allow building OpenJDK with UBSan. Currently the build fails when optimizing
>> the image due to lots of undefined behavior (it invokes the built JVM).
>> Follow up PRs will either replace the undefined behavior with well defined
>> behav
On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 08:14:51 GMT, Robbin Ehn wrote:
>> Justin King has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Add comment explaining __ubsan_default_options and UBSAN_OPTIONS
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Justin King
>
> src/java.base/
> Allow building OpenJDK with UBSan. Currently the build fails when optimizing
> the image due to lots of undefined behavior (it invokes the built JVM).
> Follow up PRs will either replace the undefined behavior with well defined
> behavior or suppress errors which are intentional. The goal is t
> Allow building OpenJDK with UBSan. Currently the build fails when optimizing
> the image due to lots of undefined behavior (it invokes the built JVM).
> Follow up PRs will either replace the undefined behavior with well defined
> behavior or suppress errors which are intentional. The goal is t
> Allow building OpenJDK with UBSan. Currently the build fails when optimizing
> the image due to lots of undefined behavior (it invokes the built JVM).
> Follow up PRs will either replace the undefined behavior with well defined
> behavior or suppress errors which are intentional. The goal is t
On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 07:02:04 GMT, Justin King wrote:
>> Allow building OpenJDK with UBSan. Currently the build fails when optimizing
>> the image due to lots of undefined behavior (it invokes the built JVM).
>> Follow up PRs will either replace the undefined behavior with well defined
>> behav
On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 07:26:21 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
>> Justin King has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Add comment explaining __ubsan_default_options and UBSAN_OPTIONS
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Justin King
>
> src/java.bas
On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 07:02:04 GMT, Justin King wrote:
>> Allow building OpenJDK with UBSan. Currently the build fails when optimizing
>> the image due to lots of undefined behavior (it invokes the built JVM).
>> Follow up PRs will either replace the undefined behavior with well defined
>> behav
On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 06:48:25 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
>> Justin King has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Remove UBSAN_ENABLED From spec.gmk.in
>
> src/java.base/share/native/launcher/main.c line 38:
>
>> 36:
>> 37: #ifdef U
> Allow building OpenJDK with UBSan. Currently the build fails when optimizing
> the image due to lots of undefined behavior (it invokes the built JVM).
> Follow up PRs will either replace the undefined behavior with well defined
> behavior or suppress errors which are intentional. The goal is t
On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 06:47:44 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
>> Yeah, it is unfortunate. However there is no other way to actually set the
>> defaults nicely. The other alternative is to use environment variables, but
>> they are easy to forget when invoking the launcher manually.
>
> Does the env-var
On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 04:34:07 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
>>> I think it requires much broader discussion as to whether OpenJDK is
>>> actively seen to endorse these tools. Why these tools? What if there are
>>> other tools, should we support them all?
>>>
>>> I'm not saying use of these tools may
On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 05:59:19 GMT, Justin King wrote:
>> Allow building OpenJDK with UBSan. Currently the build fails when optimizing
>> the image due to lots of undefined behavior (it invokes the built JVM).
>> Follow up PRs will either replace the undefined behavior with well defined
>> behav
On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 05:51:52 GMT, Justin King wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/native/launcher/main.c line 37:
>>
>>> 35: #include "jni.h"
>>> 36:
>>> 37: #ifdef UNDEFINED_BEHAVIOR_SANITIZER
>>
>> I really do not like having to make source code changes to accommodate these
>> kinds of tools.
>
>
On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 04:34:07 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
>>> I think it requires much broader discussion as to whether OpenJDK is
>>> actively seen to endorse these tools. Why these tools? What if there are
>>> other tools, should we support them all?
>>>
>>> I'm not saying use of these tools may
On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 05:02:12 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
>> make/autoconf/spec.gmk.in line 459:
>>
>>> 457:
>>> 458: # UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer
>>> 459: UBSAN_ENABLED:=@UBSAN_ENABLED@
>>
>> I don't see anything reading this. ??
>
> To be clear there was a reason that `ASAN_ENABLED` was original
On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 01:29:14 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
>> Justin King has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Remove UBSAN_ENABLED From spec.gmk.in
>
> src/java.base/share/native/launcher/main.c line 37:
>
>> 35: #include "jni.h"
On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 05:48:41 GMT, Justin King wrote:
>>> I think it requires much broader discussion as to whether OpenJDK is
>>> actively seen to endorse these tools. Why these tools? What if there are
>>> other tools, should we support them all?
>>>
>>> I'm not saying use of these tools may
On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 03:26:15 GMT, Justin King wrote:
>> I think it requires much broader discussion as to whether OpenJDK is
>> actively seen to endorse these tools. Why these tools? What if there are
>> other tools, should we support them all?
>>
>> I'm not saying use of these tools may not b
> Allow building OpenJDK with UBSan. Currently the build fails when optimizing
> the image due to lots of undefined behavior (it invokes the built JVM).
> Follow up PRs will either replace the undefined behavior with well defined
> behavior or suppress errors which are intentional. The goal is t
On Fri, 9 Dec 2022 06:53:31 GMT, Justin King wrote:
> Allow building OpenJDK with UBSan. Currently the build fails when optimizing
> the image due to lots of undefined behavior (it invokes the built JVM).
> Follow up PRs will either replace the undefined behavior with well defined
> behavior o
On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 01:27:43 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
>> Allow building OpenJDK with UBSan. Currently the build fails when optimizing
>> the image due to lots of undefined behavior (it invokes the built JVM).
>> Follow up PRs will either replace the undefined behavior with well defined
>> beha
On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 03:26:15 GMT, Justin King wrote:
>> I think it requires much broader discussion as to whether OpenJDK is
>> actively seen to endorse these tools. Why these tools? What if there are
>> other tools, should we support them all?
>>
>> I'm not saying use of these tools may not b
On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 01:31:38 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
> I think it requires much broader discussion as to whether OpenJDK is actively
> seen to endorse these tools. Why these tools? What if there are other tools,
> should we support them all?
>
> I'm not saying use of these tools may not be us
On Fri, 9 Dec 2022 06:53:31 GMT, Justin King wrote:
> Allow building OpenJDK with UBSan. Currently the build fails when optimizing
> the image due to lots of undefined behavior (it invokes the built JVM).
> Follow up PRs will either replace the undefined behavior with well defined
> behavior o
On Fri, 9 Dec 2022 14:34:37 GMT, Erik Joelsson wrote:
>> Allow building OpenJDK with UBSan. Currently the build fails when optimizing
>> the image due to lots of undefined behavior (it invokes the built JVM).
>> Follow up PRs will either replace the undefined behavior with well defined
>> beha
On Fri, 9 Dec 2022 06:53:31 GMT, Justin King wrote:
> Allow building OpenJDK with UBSan. Currently the build fails when optimizing
> the image due to lots of undefined behavior (it invokes the built JVM).
> Follow up PRs will either replace the undefined behavior with well defined
> behavior o
On Fri, 9 Dec 2022 06:53:31 GMT, Justin King wrote:
> Allow building OpenJDK with UBSan. Currently the build fails when optimizing
> the image due to lots of undefined behavior (it invokes the built JVM).
> Follow up PRs will either replace the undefined behavior with well defined
> behavior o
On Fri, 9 Dec 2022 14:16:19 GMT, Robbin Ehn wrote:
> > What version of GCC are you using?
>
> gcc 11.3 with libubsan 11.2
>
> Also it seem to big overlap with -Wcast-align(=strict) for the
> warnings/errors I see and I do like that warning. Do you have an idea if the
> coverage are pretty muc
On Fri, 9 Dec 2022 06:53:31 GMT, Justin King wrote:
> Allow building OpenJDK with UBSan. Currently the build fails when optimizing
> the image due to lots of undefined behavior (it invokes the built JVM).
> Follow up PRs will either replace the undefined behavior with well defined
> behavior o
On Fri, 9 Dec 2022 13:46:07 GMT, Justin King wrote:
> What version of GCC are you using?
gcc 11.3 with libubsan 11.2
Also it seem to big overlap with -Wcast-align(=strict) for the warnings/errors
I see and I do like that warning.
Do you have an idea if the coverage are pretty much the same for
On Fri, 9 Dec 2022 06:53:31 GMT, Justin King wrote:
> Allow building OpenJDK with UBSan. Currently the build fails when optimizing
> the image due to lots of undefined behavior (it invokes the built JVM).
> Follow up PRs will either replace the undefined behavior with well defined
> behavior o
On Fri, 9 Dec 2022 06:53:31 GMT, Justin King wrote:
> Allow building OpenJDK with UBSan. Currently the build fails when optimizing
> the image due to lots of undefined behavior (it invokes the built JVM).
> Follow up PRs will either replace the undefined behavior with well defined
> behavior o
Allow building OpenJDK with UBSan. Currently the build fails when optimizing
the image due to lots of undefined behavior (it invokes the built JVM). Follow
up PRs will either replace the undefined behavior with well defined behavior or
suppress errors which are intentional. The goal is to make O
59 matches
Mail list logo
