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: [PAT
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 sha
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 ab
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 is
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 misleading:
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 san
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 finishe
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 mainlin
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 bu
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 t
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 y
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 to
14 matches
Mail list logo