Building the ASAN for the n32 MIPS ABI currently fails, due to a few reasons:
- defined(__mips64), which is set solely based on the architecture type
(32-bit/64-bit), was still used in some places.
Therefore, defined(__mips64) is swapped with SANITIZER_MIPS64, which takes the
ABI into account as
Building the ASAN for the n32 MIPS ABI currently fails, due to a few reasons:
- defined(__mips64), which is set solely based on the architecture type
(32-bit/64-bit),
was still used in some places. Therefore, defined(__mips64) is swapped with
SANITIZER_MIPS64,
which takes the ABI into account a
Please configure your mail client to send the patch as plain text (not
HTML, and don't replace a tab with 8 whitespaces, etc). If it's not
possible, send the patch as an attachment.
And, it's better to separate the changes in
https://reviews.llvm.org/D127098 and struct_kernel_stat_sz into two
pat
On Fri, 2022-07-01 at 12:40 +, Dimitrije Milosevic wrote:
> Building the ASAN for the n32 MIPS ABI currently fails, due to a few reasons:
> - defined(__mips64), which is set solely based on the architecture type
> (32-bit/64-bit),
> was still used in some places. Therefore, defined(__mips64)
Thanks Xi. Forgive me as I'm not that familiar with the coding standards
when submitting patches for a review.
Here is the updated version of the patch.
Building the ASAN for the n32 MIPS ABI currently fails, due to a few reasons:
- defined(__mips64), which is set solely based on the architecture
Xi Ruoyao via Gcc-patches writes:
> On Fri, 2022-07-01 at 12:40 +, Dimitrije Milosevic wrote:
>> Building the ASAN for the n32 MIPS ABI currently fails, due to a few reasons:
>> - defined(__mips64), which is set solely based on the architecture type
>> (32-bit/64-bit),
>> was still used in s
1
-# if defined(__mips64)
+# if defined(__mips64) && _MIPS_SIM == _ABI64
#define SANITIZER_MIPS32 0
#define SANITIZER_MIPS64 1
# else
--
2.25.1
From: Richard Sandiford
Sent: Monday, July 4, 2022 1:23 PM
To: Xi Ruoyao via Gcc-patches
Cc: Dimitrije Milosevic ; Xi Ruoyao
; Djordje
On Wed, 2022-07-06 at 11:34 +, Dimitrije Milosevic wrote:
> Ping. :)
> This change just landed on LLVM (see
> https://reviews.llvm.org/rG5d8077565e4196efdd4ed525a64c11a96d5aa5dd).
> Unfortunately, I do not have commit access, so if anyone can commit it, that
> would be great!
> Here is the pa
On Thu, 2022-07-07 at 02:11 +0800, Xi Ruoyao via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-07-06 at 11:34 +, Dimitrije Milosevic wrote:
> > Ping. :)
> > This change just landed on LLVM (see
> > https://reviews.llvm.org/rG5d8077565e4196efdd4ed525a64c11a96d5aa5dd)
> > .
> > Unfortunately, I do not have c
