public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug sanitizer/105614] mips64: sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cpp:75:38: error: static assertion failed
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 10:05:22 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-105614-4-iYb0V5XqMa@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-105614-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614
--- Comment #14 from Xi Ruoyao <xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Chris Packham from comment #13)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #12)
> > Please provide info about how libsanitizer end up building with GCC 11.3 and
> > MIPS64 (such a combination is not supported and libsanitizer should not be
> > enabled automatically with it).
>
> Original user report was
> https://github.com/crosstool-ng/crosstool-ng/issues/1733
>
> In that case the user specifically enabled LIBSANITZER support so
> --enable-libsanitizer was passed to GCC's configure.
>
> Based on what you're saying we should gate the LIBSANITZER on the
> architecture and GCC version. We do that for some options but LIBSANITZER is
> just enabled or disabled. We should probably also have LIBSANITZER tristate
> so we can let GCC decide to enable it if the stars align.
I think you can just put a warning like "enabling libsanitizer for unsupported
targets may break the build or produce unusable libsanitizer". I guess a
similar warning should be added into gcc configure.ac as well.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-06-30 10:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-05-16 8:53 [Bug sanitizer/105614] New: " judge.packham at gmail dot com
2022-05-16 9:04 ` [Bug sanitizer/105614] " marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-16 9:26 ` judge.packham at gmail dot com
2022-05-16 9:28 ` judge.packham at gmail dot com
2022-05-16 9:29 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-17 4:04 ` judge.packham at gmail dot com
2022-05-17 12:22 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-20 0:10 ` hp at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-22 6:18 ` judge.packham at gmail dot com
2022-06-29 11:57 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-06-30 3:34 ` xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-06-30 3:55 ` xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-06-30 4:16 ` xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-06-30 5:07 ` judge.packham at gmail dot com
2022-06-30 10:05 ` xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2022-08-31 3:58 ` broly at mac dot com
2022-08-31 4:10 ` xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-08-31 4:19 ` broly at mac dot com
2022-11-20 17:30 ` broly at mac dot com
2023-05-03 18:41 ` broly at mac dot com
2023-05-03 18:54 ` broly at mac dot com
2023-07-05 15:59 ` syq at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-07-06 0:58 ` broly at mac dot com
2023-07-06 1:00 ` syq at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=bug-105614-4-iYb0V5XqMa@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
--to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).