https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98920
--- Comment #20 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ea7fff4c43a24dee1db4153250455e6040a1afce
commit r11-7576-gea7fff4c43a24dee1db4153250455e6040a1afce
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98920
--- Comment #19 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Indeed.
> But perhaps instead of adding new effective target tests, in this case it
> could
> be resolved by:
[... wrapping the bulk of main
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98920
--- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Indeed.
But perhaps instead of adding new effective target tests, in this case it could
be resolved by:
--- gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/asan/pr98920.c.jj2021-03-08
23:40:33.935447429 +0100
+++ gcc/tes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98920
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #17 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98920
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98920
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:81fee438512460f1be50d91ee5de452f8fe5cc18
commit r11-7555-g81fee438512460f1be50d91ee5de452f8fe5cc18
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98920
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98920
--- Comment #14 from Martin Liška ---
On x86_64 these are intercepted from the list you provided:
sched_getaffinity
clock_getcpuclockid
lgammal
clock_settime
clock_gettime
memcpy
fmemopen
realpath
lgamma
lgammaf
glob
glob64
pthread_attr_getaffin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98920
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
LGTM. But as I said, it could be useful to look for other symbols too.
Looking at i686 glibc, I see
for j in /lib/libc.so.6 /lib/libpthread.so.0 /lib/libm.so.6; do for i in
`readelf -Ws $j | grep -v ' UND '
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98920
--- Comment #12 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 50149
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50149&action=edit
Patch v2
There's a second version of the patch that selectively define
SANITIZER_REGEXEC_VERSION based on the t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98920
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #7)
> I think libsanitizer falls back to a version-less lookup if the version
> cannot be found. Therefore, if the glibc baseline is after 2.3.4, the
> version-less lo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98920
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Ugh, that is quite misdesigned then...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98920
--- Comment #9 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> Even if it does, exporting regexec@@GLIBC_2.3.4 from libsanitizer when glibc
> doesn't support that symbol looks wrong.
I think all the interceptors use unversi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98920
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Even if it does, exporting regexec@@GLIBC_2.3.4 from libsanitizer when glibc
doesn't support that symbol looks wrong.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98920
Florian Weimer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98920
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Well, it is not about what arches you care about, but what arches we support in
libsanitizer/configure.tgt (from *-linux*).
So, riscv64, aarch64, mips, arm, s390*, sparc*, powerpc*, x86.
So it is desirable to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98920
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> I'm not sure if your patch is correct.
> glibc has the system of earliest symbol versions, and so on certain
> architectures
> GLIBC_2.3.4 symver will not appear a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98920
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And maybe it would be worth comparing the list of glibc symbols with multiple
symbol versions with the list of interposed libsanitizer symbols, perhaps
several others need similar treatment.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98920
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fweimer at redhat dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98920
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://reviews.llvm.org/D9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98920
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-02-02
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98920
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |10.3
Keywords|
22 matches
Mail list logo
