On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 12:24:47PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
> I install the patch set. If I'm correct one last missing piece should
> be update of LOCAL_PATCHES. I'm sending patch for it.
Ok, thanks.
Jakub
Hi.
I install the patch set. If I'm correct one last missing piece should
be update of LOCAL_PATCHES. I'm sending patch for it.
Ready for trunk?
Thanks,
Martin
>From 02134e26743eed447f62f7e22d75ddfe605e88e3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: marxin
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 12:22:36 +0100
Subject:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 05:00:36PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 10:38:11AM -0500, Bill Seurer wrote:
> > > I'm still wondering what didn't work with 41 bits? AFAICS, due to
> > > highshadow=highmem-offset and lowshadow=low+offset, and the existence of a
> > > non-empty
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 10:38:11AM -0500, Bill Seurer wrote:
> > I'm still wondering what didn't work with 41 bits? AFAICS, due to
> > highshadow=highmem-offset and lowshadow=low+offset, and the existence of a
> > non-empty shadow-gap, offset must be minimum(vbits)-3 (vbits being one of
> > the
On 10/29/18 10:26, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, Bill Seurer wrote:
Just for the record: am I right that any system using 44 bit of VMA will
fail because
anything + (1 << 44) will be out of process address space?
Yes.
And I noticed that documentation in sanitizer_linux.cc
Hi,
On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, Bill Seurer wrote:
> >> Just for the record: am I right that any system using 44 bit of VMA will
> >> fail because
> >> anything + (1 << 44) will be out of process address space?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> >> And I noticed that documentation in sanitizer_linux.cc is
On 10/29/18 06:24, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 12:13:04PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
Just for the record: am I right that any system using 44 bit of VMA will fail
because
anything + (1 << 44) will be out of process address space?
Yes.
And I noticed that documentation in
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 12:13:04PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
> Just for the record: am I right that any system using 44 bit of VMA will fail
> because
> anything + (1 << 44) will be out of process address space?
Yes.
> And I noticed that documentation in sanitizer_linux.cc is misleading:
>
>
On 10/26/18 4:52 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 09:48:54AM -0500, Bill Seurer wrote:
>> On 10/26/18 03:57, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 12:49:42PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 12:15:46PM +0200, marxin wrote:
> I've just
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 09:48:54AM -0500, Bill Seurer wrote:
> On 10/26/18 03:57, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 12:49:42PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 12:15:46PM +0200, marxin wrote:
> > > > I've just finished my first merge from libsanitizer
On 10/26/18 03:57, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 12:49:42PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 12:15:46PM +0200, marxin wrote:
I've just finished my first merge from libsanitizer mainline. Overall it
looks fine, apparently ABI hasn't changed and so that SONAME
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 12:49:42PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 12:15:46PM +0200, marxin wrote:
> > I've just finished my first merge from libsanitizer mainline. Overall it
> > looks fine, apparently ABI hasn't changed and so that SONAME bump is not
> > needed.
>
> Given
On 10/25/18 12:49 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 12:15:46PM +0200, marxin wrote:
>> I've just finished my first merge from libsanitizer mainline. Overall it
>> looks fine, apparently ABI hasn't changed and so that SONAME bump is not
>> needed.
>
> Given the 6/7 patch, I think
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 12:15:46PM +0200, marxin wrote:
> I've just finished my first merge from libsanitizer mainline. Overall it
> looks fine, apparently ABI hasn't changed and so that SONAME bump is not
> needed.
Given the 6/7 patch, I think you need to bump libasan soname (it would be
weird
Hi.
I've just finished my first merge from libsanitizer mainline. Overall it
looks fine, apparently ABI hasn't changed and so that SONAME bump is not
needed.
I tested ubsan and asan bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and run regression
tests and bootstraped on aarch64-linux-gnu, ppc64le-linux-gnu and
15 matches
Mail list logo
