Yes. And it shouldn't be just based on target CPU, but also based
on target OS, I don't think libsanitizer supports anything but linux (glibc
+ maybe android) right now, with some smaller or bigger tweaks it could
support darwin (but see the reports that it doesn't build there right now)
...
Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com writes:
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 02:17:55PM +0100, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
What do the maintainers think?
Yes. And it shouldn't be just based on target CPU, but also based
on target OS, I don't think libsanitizer supports anything but linux (glibc
+ maybe
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 03:06:56PM +0100, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com writes:
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 02:17:55PM +0100, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
What do the maintainers think?
Yes. And it shouldn't be just based on target CPU, but also based
on target OS, I
domi...@lps.ens.fr (Dominique Dhumieres) writes:
Yes. And it shouldn't be just based on target CPU, but also based
on target OS, I don't think libsanitizer supports anything but linux (glibc
+ maybe android) right now, with some smaller or bigger tweaks it could
support darwin (but see the
From: Dodji Seketeli do...@redhat.com
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:04:12 +0100
I guess when the issue of the missing files is resolved, we can enable
building libsanitizer on Darwin proper. Here is the patchlet I am
proposing so far http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg00993.html.
On 11/13/2012 05:24 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Yes. And it shouldn't be just based on target CPU, but also based
on target OS, I don't think libsanitizer supports anything but linux (glibc
+ maybe android) right now, with some smaller or bigger tweaks it could
support darwin (but see the
From: Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 21:38:40 +0100
On 11/13/2012 05:24 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Yes. And it shouldn't be just based on target CPU, but also based
on target OS, I don't think libsanitizer supports anything but linux (glibc
+ maybe android) right
On 11/13/2012 05:20 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
Right. And, I think it's worth to repeat ;) that IMHO best to
there simply check that -faddress-sanitizer can compile
error-free (i.e. that TARGET_ASAN_SHADOW_OFFSET is defined on
the target). No target lists needed.
We can't do that, since
From: Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 02:34:32 +0100
On 11/13/2012 05:20 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
Right. And, I think it's worth to repeat ;) that IMHO best to
there simply check that -faddress-sanitizer can compile
error-free (i.e. that
While the fallout(*) from the libsanitizer commit is handled,
it's obvious it should have a noconfigdirs= section in
toplevel/configure.ac like the other target libs. Here's what I
committed after observing that a cris-elf build passed, where it
previously failed building libsanitizer which
10 matches
Mail list logo
