Re: libsanitizer mege from upstream r169371

2012-12-05 Thread Konstantin Serebryany
Yea, sorry. I've noticed this upstream and committed a fix there. Feel free to remove these lines (or wait until I do another merge first thing tomorrow). --kcc On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Dominique Dhumieres wrote: >> r194221 > > It breaks bootstrap on x86_64-apple-darwin10: > > /opt/gcc/bu

Re: libsanitizer mege from upstream r169371

2012-12-05 Thread Dominique Dhumieres
> r194221 It breaks bootstrap on x86_64-apple-darwin10: /opt/gcc/build_a/./gcc/xg++ -B/opt/gcc/build_a/./gcc/ -nostdinc++ -nostdinc++ -I/opt/gcc/build_a/x86_64-apple-darwin10.8.0/libstdc++-v3/include/x86_64-apple-darwin10.8.0 -I/opt/gcc/build_a/x86_64-apple-darwin10.8.0/libstdc++-v3/include -I

Re: libsanitizer mege from upstream r169371

2012-12-05 Thread Konstantin Serebryany
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 02:59:48PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote: >> The attached patch is the libsanitizer mege from upstream r169371. >> Automatically generated by libsanitizer/merge.sh >> Tested with >>

Re: libsanitizer mege from upstream r169371

2012-12-05 Thread Dmitry Vyukov
http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/compiler-rt/trunk/lib/tsan/rtl/tsan_interface_atomic.cc?view=diff&r1=169378&r2=169379&pathrev=169379 We will integrate it later. On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > Yeah, but then there will be all that additional __sync_synchronize(), > tha

Re: libsanitizer mege from upstream r169371

2012-12-05 Thread Dmitry Vyukov
Yeah, but then there will be all that additional __sync_synchronize(), that are not needed if we use __atomic. And on the other hand, if we have that __sync_synchronize(), then we do not need __atomic... On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 04:53:44PM +04

Re: libsanitizer mege from upstream r169371

2012-12-05 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 04:53:44PM +0400, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 03:13:20PM +0400, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > >> I hope I addressed all your comments in this revision. > >> I've fixed nand atomic operation, made atomic op

Re: libsanitizer mege from upstream r169371

2012-12-05 Thread Dmitry Vyukov
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 03:13:20PM +0400, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: >> I hope I addressed all your comments in this revision. >> I've fixed nand atomic operation, made atomic operations atomic again >> and added visibility attribute to interface fu

Re: libsanitizer mege from upstream r169371

2012-12-05 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 02:59:48PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote: > The attached patch is the libsanitizer mege from upstream r169371. > Automatically generated by libsanitizer/merge.sh > Tested with > rm -rf */{*/,}libsanitizer \ > && make -j 50 \ >

Re: libsanitizer mege from upstream r169371

2012-12-05 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 03:13:20PM +0400, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > I hope I addressed all your comments in this revision. > I've fixed nand atomic operation, made atomic operations atomic again > and added visibility attribute to interface functions. Mostly, still, __sync_lock_test_and_set isn't ful

Re: libsanitizer mege from upstream r169371

2012-12-05 Thread Dmitry Vyukov
PM, Konstantin Serebryany > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> The attached patch is the libsanitizer mege from upstream r169371. >> Automatically generated by libsanitizer/merge.sh >> Tested with >> rm -rf */{*/,}libsanitizer \ >> && make -j 50 \ >>

Re: libsanitizer mege from upstream r169371

2012-12-05 Thread Dmitry Vyukov
LGTM On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Konstantin Serebryany wrote: > Hi, > > The attached patch is the libsanitizer mege from upstream r169371. > Automatically generated by libsanitizer/merge.sh > Tested with > rm -rf */{*/,}libsanitizer \ > && make -j 50 \