From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 8C534386DC51; Thu, 30 Jun 2022 10:05:24 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 8C534386DC51 From: "xry111 at gcc dot 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 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: sanitizer X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.3.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: WAITING X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 10:05:24 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D105614 --- Comment #14 from Xi Ruoyao --- (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). >=20 > Original user report was > https://github.com/crosstool-ng/crosstool-ng/issues/1733 >=20 > In that case the user specifically enabled LIBSANITZER support so > --enable-libsanitizer was passed to GCC's configure. >=20 > 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 trista= te > 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 unsuppor= ted targets may break the build or produce unusable libsanitizer". I guess a similar warning should be added into gcc configure.ac as well.=