[Bug sanitizer/105614] New: mips64: sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cpp:75:38: error: static assertion failed

[Bug sanitizer/105614] New: mips64: sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cpp:75:38: error: static assertion failed

[judge.packham at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614

            Bug ID: 105614
           Summary: mips64: sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cpp:75:38:
                    error: static assertion failed
           Product: gcc
           Version: 11.3.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: sanitizer
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: judge.packham at gmail dot com
                CC: dodji at gcc dot gnu.org, dvyukov at gcc dot gnu.org,
                    jakub at gcc dot gnu.org, kcc at gcc dot gnu.org, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
  Target Milestone: ---

Building for mips64-unknown-linux-gnu with libsanitizer enabled the following
static_assert is triggered.

[ALL  ]    In file included from
/home/ctng/crosstool-ng/.build/mips64-unknown-linux-gnu/src/gcc/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cpp:21: 
[ERROR]   
/home/ctng/crosstool-ng/.build/mips64-unknown-linux-gnu/src/gcc/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cpp:75:38:
error: static assertion failed                                                  
[ALL  ]       75 | COMPILER_CHECK(struct_kernel_stat_sz == sizeof(struct
stat));                                                                         
[ALL  ]          |                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  
[ALL  ]   
/home/ctng/crosstool-ng/.build/mips64-unknown-linux-gnu/src/gcc/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_internal_defs.h:332:44:
note: in definition of macro 'COMPILER_CHECK'                                   
[ALL  ]      332 | #define COMPILER_CHECK(pred) static_assert(pred, "")         
[ALL  ]          |                                            ^~~~              
[ERROR]    make[5]: *** [Makefile:615: sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.lo]
Error 1                                                                         
[ERROR]    make[5]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....                         

Looking at the libsanitizer code I see 

#elif defined(__mips__)
const unsigned struct_kernel_stat_sz = SANITIZER_ANDROID
                                           ? FIRST_32_SECOND_64(104, 128)
                                           : FIRST_32_SECOND_64(144, 216);
const unsigned struct_kernel_stat64_sz = 104;

But from the Linux kernel's arch/mips/include/uapi/asm/stat.h I make the size
of struct stat 104 for the _MIPS_SIM_ABI64 case. The 144 seems to line up with
the _MIPS_SIM_NABI32/_MIPS_SIM_ABI32 case.

Where did libsanitizer get 216 from?

[Bug sanitizer/105614] mips64: sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cpp:75:38: error: static assertion failed

[marxin at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614

Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2022-05-16

--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> 
> Where did libsanitizer get 216 from?

It's in the upstream since the beginning:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D4208

Please create an upstream bug for it.

[Bug sanitizer/105614] mips64: sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cpp:75:38: error: static assertion failed

[judge.packham at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614

--- Comment #2 from Chris Packham <judge.packham at gmail dot com> ---
Created attachment 52984
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52984&action=edit
Set struct_kernel_stat_sz

[Bug sanitizer/105614] mips64: sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cpp:75:38: error: static assertion failed

[judge.packham at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614

--- Comment #3 from Chris Packham <judge.packham at gmail dot com> ---
It looks like upstream has moved to FIRST_32_SECOND_64(160, 216) somewhere
along the line. According to my reading of the linux source code this is wrong
for both bitnesses now.

[Bug sanitizer/105614] mips64: sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cpp:75:38: error: static assertion failed

[marxin at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614

--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Please make the review request to upstream first:
https://reviews.llvm.org/

[Bug sanitizer/105614] mips64: sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cpp:75:38: error: static assertion failed

[judge.packham at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614

--- Comment #5 from Chris Packham <judge.packham at gmail dot com> ---
Upstream issue raised https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/55499 I still
think there's some work on the GCC side required as even without this specific
issue things have diverged.

[Bug sanitizer/105614] mips64: sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cpp:75:38: error: static assertion failed

[marxin at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614

Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |hp at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The GCC divergence comes from
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/9f943b2446f2d0a345bbf9b4be3d3a4316372270

[Bug sanitizer/105614] mips64: sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cpp:75:38: error: static assertion failed

[hp at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614

--- Comment #7 from Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> The GCC divergence comes from
> https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/
> 9f943b2446f2d0a345bbf9b4be3d3a4316372270

(Why refer to gcc commits through some mirror repo?)

This is r9-17-g9f943b2446f2d0.

At a glance, it looks like a trivial merge error.  ISTM the fix is to *again*
do as in that patch; drop "|| defined(__mips__)" to avoid suffering from the
<sys/stat.h> badness:

diff --git a/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cpp
b/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cpp
index 2b1a2f7932cb..d9f1bc3b8bbd 100644
--- a/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cpp
+++ b/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cpp
@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@
 // Also, for some platforms (e.g. mips) there are additional members in the
 // <sys/stat.h> struct stat:s.
 #include <linux/posix_types.h>
-#  if defined(__x86_64__) || defined(__mips__) || defined(__hexagon__)
+#  if defined(__x86_64__) || defined(__hexagon__)
 #    include <sys/stat.h>
 #  else
 #    define ino_t __kernel_ino_t

HTH.

[Bug sanitizer/105614] mips64: sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cpp:75:38: error: static assertion failed

[judge.packham at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614

--- Comment #8 from Chris Packham <judge.packham at gmail dot com> ---
In terms of my proposed change which fixes the problem for GCC 11.3.0 it
actually triggers the same assert on GCC 12.1.0.


[ALL  ]    In file included from
/home/bagas/cross/workdir/mips64-unknown/.build/mips64-unknown-linux-gnu/src/gcc/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cpp:21:
[ERROR]   
/home/bagas/cross/workdir/mips64-unknown/.build/mips64-unknown-linux-gnu/src/gcc/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cpp:75:38:
error: static assertion failed
[ALL  ]       75 | COMPILER_CHECK(struct_kernel_stat_sz == sizeof(struct
stat));
[ALL  ]          |                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[ALL  ]   
/home/bagas/cross/workdir/mips64-unknown/.build/mips64-unknown-linux-gnu/src/gcc/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_internal_defs.h:348:44:
note: in definition of macro 'COMPILER_CHECK'
[ALL  ]      348 | #define COMPILER_CHECK(pred) static_assert(pred, "")
[ALL  ]          |                                            ^~~~
[ALL  ]   
/home/bagas/cross/workdir/mips64-unknown/.build/mips64-unknown-linux-gnu/src/gcc/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cpp:75:38:
note: the comparison reduces to '(104 == 216)'
[ALL  ]       75 | COMPILER_CHECK(struct_kernel_stat_sz == sizeof(struct
stat));
[ALL  ]          |                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[ALL  ]   
/home/bagas/cross/workdir/mips64-unknown/.build/mips64-unknown-linux-gnu/src/gcc/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_internal_defs.h:348:44:
note: in definition of macro 'COMPILER_CHECK'
[ALL  ]      348 | #define COMPILER_CHECK(pred) static_assert(pred, "")
[ALL  ]          |                                            ^~~~
[ERROR]    make[5]: *** [Makefile:616: sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.lo]
Error 1

It appears that with GCC 12 we now end up with different values for _MIPS_SIM.

Removing my "fix" resolves the issue for GCC 12 but I suspect something like
the suggestion from https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614#c7
might resolve the issue properly.

[Bug sanitizer/105614] mips64: sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cpp:75:38: error: static assertion failed

[marxin at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614

Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |immoloism at googlemail dot com

--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
*** Bug 106136 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug sanitizer/105614] mips64: sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cpp:75:38: error: static assertion failed

[xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614

Xi Ruoyao <xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #10 from Xi Ruoyao <xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
We've not backported MIPS64 libsanitizer support to GCC 11 so it should not be
enabled.  In configure.tgt we have:

  mips*64*-*-linux*)
    # This clause is only here to not match the supported mips*-*-linux*.
    UNSUPPORTED=1

so I'm not sure how libsanitizer is even being built with 11.3.0 for you.  If
you "played" something with the code, don't do that.  Otherwise, the only real
bug is "libsanitizer enabled for MIPS64 with GCC 11.3.0 while it's not
supported".

[Bug sanitizer/105614] mips64: sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cpp:75:38: error: static assertion failed

[xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614

--- Comment #11 from Xi Ruoyao <xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> Removing my "fix" resolves the issue for GCC 12 but I suspect something like
> the suggestion from https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614#c7
> might resolve the issue properly.

I don't think so.  We have:

#  define POST_WRITE(p, s) COMMON_SYSCALL_POST_WRITE_RANGE(p, s)

and the description of COMMON_SYSCALL_POST_WRITE_RANGE is:

//   COMMON_SYSCALL_POST_WRITE_RANGE
//          Called in posthook for regions that were written to by the kernel
//          and are now initialized.

and, libsanitizer does *not* intercept syscalls, but intercepts libc calls.  So
the size value is used by determine if the *libc function call* will overwrite
the buffer, and the size from glibc header shall be used, not the kernel
header.  The name "struct_kernel_stat_sz" is just misleading, should be
"struct_stat_sz" or "struct_libc_stat_sz".

[Bug sanitizer/105614] mips64: sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cpp:75:38: error: static assertion failed

[xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614

Xi Ruoyao <xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |WAITING

--- Comment #12 from Xi Ruoyao <xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
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).

[Bug sanitizer/105614] mips64: sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cpp:75:38: error: static assertion failed

[judge.packham at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614

--- Comment #13 from Chris Packham <judge.packham at gmail dot com> ---
(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.

[Bug sanitizer/105614] mips64: sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cpp:75:38: error: static assertion failed

[xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org]

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.

[Bug sanitizer/105614] mips64: sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cpp:75:38: error: static assertion failed

[broly at mac dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614

gagan sidhu (broly) <broly at mac dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |broly at mac dot com

--- Comment #15 from gagan sidhu (broly) <broly at mac dot com> ---
we can always count on the scandinavians to be sensible and provide efficient
solutions.

the fix on 12.2 is to apply the changes here:

https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/ee915c72da2caf92697dbedf0d9d9730ce9aca7a

and also: https://gcc.gnu.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=gcc.git;h=9f943b2446f2d0

together, the problem is fixed.

i had the exact same issue plus a bunch of things with lstat/stat.

all of them have now gone away.

[Bug sanitizer/105614] mips64: sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cpp:75:38: error: static assertion failed

[xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614

--- Comment #16 from Xi Ruoyao <xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to gagan sidhu (broly) from comment #15)

> and also: https://gcc.gnu.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=gcc.git;h=9f943b2446f2d0

Please don't use this.  I've already said why this is not correct in previous
replies.

The correct fix is https://reviews.llvm.org/D129749, which is not reviewed by
upstream yet.  As libsanitizer is technically not a part of GCC we cannot apply
a fix before it's accepted by upstream.

[Bug sanitizer/105614] mips64: sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cpp:75:38: error: static assertion failed

[broly at mac dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614

--- Comment #17 from gagan sidhu (broly) <broly at mac dot com> ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #16)
> (In reply to gagan sidhu (broly) from comment #15)
> 
> > and also: https://gcc.gnu.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=gcc.git;h=9f943b2446f2d0
> 
> Please don't use this.  I've already said why this is not correct in
> previous replies.
> 
> The correct fix is https://reviews.llvm.org/D129749, which is not reviewed
> by upstream yet.  As libsanitizer is technically not a part of GCC we cannot
> apply a fix before it's accepted by upstream.

thank you for this.

after reading the replies and applying
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/ee915c72da2caf92697dbedf0d9d9730ce9aca7a
i thought hans' fix would do the trick since it was building, but then it had a
problem on another ABI (i jumped the gun, my bad).

this led me to conclude the problem could be fixed with a size macro for the
64/N32 ABIs but i don't know the code very well.

i can confirm these two commits fix the problem:
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=gcc.git;h=9f943b2446f2d0
https://reviews.llvm.org/D129749


thanks.

an aside:
not sure how much libsanitiser is used, and i suspect you're correct that i
could have done without it. 

not sure how all of these problems arose between 11.3 and 12.2. nice to see
things are back on track.

[Bug sanitizer/105614] mips64: sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cpp:75:38: error: static assertion failed

[broly at mac dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614

--- Comment #18 from gagan sidhu (broly) <broly at mac dot com> ---
hi,

i wanted to correct an inaccuracy in my previous comment, as i needed to build
a MIPS64 multilib toolchain today and ran into the same problem.

the solution is, as my friend of chinese origin suggested:

https://reviews.llvm.org/D129749

the solution here:

https://gcc.gnu.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=gcc.git;h=9f943b2446f2d0

is not conducive to the overall fix, which i will be commenting on in the llvm
review since it's not exactly relevant to the issue here. this issue focuses
exclusively on the assertion failure, but not the struct stat issues that arise
when trying to build a multilib toolchain for MIPS.

sorry for any confusion!

[Bug sanitizer/105614] mips64: sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cpp:75:38: error: static assertion failed

[broly at mac dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614

--- Comment #19 from gagan sidhu (broly) <broly at mac dot com> ---
seems that 13.1.0 still needs some modification, because i was building the
toolchain and now get a static assertion error:


> /bin/sh ../libtool  --tag=CXX   --mode=compile /Volumes/xtoolshit/bgcc/./gcc/xgcc -shared-libgcc -B/Volumes/xtoolshit/bgcc/./gcc -nostdinc++ -L/Volumes/xtoolshit/bgcc/mips64el-none-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/src -L/Volumes/xtoolshit/bgcc/mips64el-none-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/src/.libs -L/Volumes/xtoolshit/bgcc/mips64el-none-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/.libs -B/cross/mips64el-none-linux-gnu/bin/ -B/cross/mips64el-none-linux-gnu/lib/ -isystem /cross/mips64el-none-linux-gnu/include -isystem /cross/mips64el-none-linux-gnu/sys-include    -D_GNU_SOURCE -D_DEBUG -D__STDC_CONSTANT_MACROS -D__STDC_FORMAT_MACROS -D__STDC_LIMIT_MACROS  -DHAVE_RPC_XDR_H=0 -DHAVE_TIRPC_RPC_XDR_H=0 -I. -I../../../../gcc-13.1.0/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common -I..  -I ../../../../gcc-13.1.0/libsanitizer/include -I ../../../../gcc-13.1.0/libsanitizer -isystem ../../../../gcc-13.1.0/libsanitizer/include/system  -Wall -W -Wno-unused-parameter -Wwrite-strings -pedantic -Wno-long-long -fPIC -fno-builtin -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -fomit-frame-pointer -funwind-tables -fvisibility=hidden -Wno-variadic-macros -I../../libstdc++-v3/include     -I../../libstdc++-v3/include/mips64el-none-linux-gnu     -I../../../../gcc-13.1.0/libsanitizer/../libstdc++-v3/libsupc++ -std=gnu++14 -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -DSANITIZER_LIBBACKTRACE -DSANITIZER_CP_DEMANGLE -I ../../../../gcc-13.1.0/libsanitizer/../libbacktrace -I ../libbacktrace -I ../../../../gcc-13.1.0/libsanitizer/../include -include ../../../../gcc-13.1.0/libsanitizer/libbacktrace/backtrace-rename.h -g -O2 -D_GNU_SOURCE -minterlink-mips16 -MT sanitizer_stacktrace.lo -MD -MP -MF .deps/sanitizer_stacktrace.Tpo -c -o sanitizer_stacktrace.lo ../../../../gcc-13.1.0/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_stacktrace.cpp
> In file included from ../../../../gcc-13.1.0/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_flags.h:16,
>                  from ../../../../gcc-13.1.0/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_common.h:18,
>                  from ../../../../gcc-13.1.0/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_posix.cpp:174:
> ../../../../gcc-13.1.0/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_posix.cpp:986:29: error: static assertion failed
>   986 | COMPILER_CHECK(IOC_SIZEBITS == _IOC_SIZEBITS);
> ../../../../gcc-13.1.0/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_internal_defs.h:352:44: note: in definition of macro 'COMPILER_CHECK'
>   352 | #define COMPILER_CHECK(pred) static_assert(pred, "")
>       |                                            ^~~~
> ../../../../gcc-13.1.0/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_posix.cpp:986:29: note: the comparison reduces to '(13 == 14)'
>   986 | COMPILER_CHECK(IOC_SIZEBITS == _IOC_SIZEBITS);
> ../../../../gcc-13.1.0/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_internal_defs.h:352:44: note: in definition of macro 'COMPILER_CHECK'
>   352 | #define COMPILER_CHECK(pred) static_assert(pred, "")
>       |                                            ^~~~
> ../../../../gcc-13.1.0/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_posix.cpp:987:28: error: static assertion failed
>   987 | COMPILER_CHECK(IOC_DIRBITS == _IOC_DIRBITS);
> ../../../../gcc-13.1.0/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_internal_defs.h:352:44: note: in definition of macro 'COMPILER_CHECK'
>   352 | #define COMPILER_CHECK(pred) static_assert(pred, "")
>       |                                            ^~~~
> ../../../../gcc-13.1.0/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_posix.cpp:987:28: note: the comparison reduces to '(3 == 2)'
>   987 | COMPILER_CHECK(IOC_DIRBITS == _IOC_DIRBITS);
> ../../../../gcc-13.1.0/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_internal_defs.h:352:44: note: in definition of macro 'COMPILER_CHECK'
>   352 | #define COMPILER_CHECK(pred) static_assert(pred, "")
>       |                                            ^~~~
> ../../../../gcc-13.1.0/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_posix.cpp:990:29: error: static assertion failed
>   990 | COMPILER_CHECK(IOC_SIZEMASK == _IOC_SIZEMASK);
> ../../../../gcc-13.1.0/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_internal_defs.h:352:44: note: in definition of macro 'COMPILER_CHECK'
>   352 | #define COMPILER_CHECK(pred) static_assert(pred, "")
>       |                                            ^~~~
> ../../../../gcc-13.1.0/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_posix.cpp:990:29: note: the comparison reduces to '(8191 == 16383)'
>   990 | COMPILER_CHECK(IOC_SIZEMASK == _IOC_SIZEMASK);
> ../../../../gcc-13.1.0/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_internal_defs.h:352:44: note: in definition of macro 'COMPILER_CHECK'
>   352 | #define COMPILER_CHECK(pred) static_assert(pred, "")
>       |                                            ^~~~
> ../../../../gcc-13.1.0/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_posix.cpp:991:28: error: static assertion failed
>   991 | COMPILER_CHECK(IOC_DIRMASK == _IOC_DIRMASK);
> ../../../../gcc-13.1.0/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_internal_defs.h:352:44: note: in definition of macro 'COMPILER_CHECK'
>   352 | #define COMPILER_CHECK(pred) static_assert(pred, "")
>       |                                            ^~~~
> ../../../../gcc-13.1.0/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_posix.cpp:991:28: note: the comparison reduces to '(7 == 3)'
>   991 | COMPILER_CHECK(IOC_DIRMASK == _IOC_DIRMASK);
> ../../../../gcc-13.1.0/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_internal_defs.h:352:44: note: in definition of macro 'COMPILER_CHECK'
>   352 | #define COMPILER_CHECK(pred) static_assert(pred, "")
>       |                                            ^~~~
> ../../../../gcc-13.1.0/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_posix.cpp:995:29: error: static assertion failed
>   995 | COMPILER_CHECK(IOC_DIRSHIFT == _IOC_DIRSHIFT);
> ../../../../gcc-13.1.0/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_internal_defs.h:352:44: note: in definition of macro 'COMPILER_CHECK'
>   352 | #define COMPILER_CHECK(pred) static_assert(pred, "")
>       |                                            ^~~~
> ../../../../gcc-13.1.0/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_posix.cpp:995:29: note: the comparison reduces to '(29 == 30)'
>   995 | COMPILER_CHECK(IOC_DIRSHIFT == _IOC_DIRSHIFT);
> ../../../../gcc-13.1.0/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_internal_defs.h:352:44: note: in definition of macro 'COMPILER_CHECK'
>   352 | #define COMPILER_CHECK(pred) static_assert(pred, "")
>       |                                            ^~~~
> ../../../../gcc-13.1.0/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_posix.cpp:996:25: error: static assertion failed
>   996 | COMPILER_CHECK(IOC_NONE == _IOC_NONE);
> ../../../../gcc-13.1.0/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_internal_defs.h:352:44: note: in definition of macro 'COMPILER_CHECK'
>   352 | #define COMPILER_CHECK(pred) static_assert(pred, "")
>       |                                            ^~~~
> ../../../../gcc-13.1.0/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_posix.cpp:996:25: note: the comparison reduces to '(1 == 0)'
>   996 | COMPILER_CHECK(IOC_NONE == _IOC_NONE);
> ../../../../gcc-13.1.0/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_internal_defs.h:352:44: note: in definition of macro 'COMPILER_CHECK'
>   352 | #define COMPILER_CHECK(pred) static_assert(pred, "")
>       |                                            ^~~~
> ../../../../gcc-13.1.0/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_posix.cpp:997:26: error: static assertion failed
>   997 | COMPILER_CHECK(IOC_WRITE == _IOC_WRITE);
> ../../../../gcc-13.1.0/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_internal_defs.h:352:44: note: in definition of macro 'COMPILER_CHECK'
>   352 | #define COMPILER_CHECK(pred) static_assert(pred, "")
>       |                                            ^~~~
> ../../../../gcc-13.1.0/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_posix.cpp:997:26: note: the comparison reduces to '(4 == 1)'
>   997 | COMPILER_CHECK(IOC_WRITE == _IOC_WRITE);
> ../../../../gcc-13.1.0/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_internal_defs.h:352:44: note: in definition of macro 'COMPILER_CHECK'
>   352 | #define COMPILER_CHECK(pred) static_assert(pred, "")
>       |                                            ^~~~


Thanks,
Gagan

> On Aug 30, 2022, at 10:10 PM, xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> 
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614
> 
> --- Comment #16 from Xi Ruoyao <xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> (In reply to gagan sidhu (broly) from comment #15)
> 
>> and also: https://gcc.gnu.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=gcc.git;h=9f943b2446f2d0
> 
> Please don't use this.  I've already said why this is not correct in previous
> replies.
> 
> The correct fix is https://reviews.llvm.org/D129749, which is not reviewed by
> upstream yet.  As libsanitizer is technically not a part of GCC we cannot apply
> a fix before it's accepted by upstream.
> 
> -- 
> You are receiving this mail because:
> You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug sanitizer/105614] mips64: sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cpp:75:38: error: static assertion failed

[broly at mac dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614

--- Comment #20 from gagan sidhu (broly) <broly at mac dot com> ---
my apologies, i should open a new ticket if this is indeed an error.

but it may be my fault for not specifying the ARCH parameter when installing
the linux headers prior to starting the toolchain.

if it isn't my fault, i will open a new ticket.

[Bug sanitizer/105614] mips64: sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cpp:75:38: error: static assertion failed

[syq at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614

YunQiang Su <syq at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |syq at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #21 from YunQiang Su <syq at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I believe this problem has been addressed since

e08835fd3a4a6559b79c26db9b18df0e838d943e


Can you have a test it?

[Bug sanitizer/105614] mips64: sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cpp:75:38: error: static assertion failed

[broly at mac dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614

--- Comment #22 from gagan sidhu (broly) <broly at mac dot com> ---
yes it’s fixed sorry.

i foolishly forgot to set the architecture when installing the headers, which
caused the alleged problems.

after i did that, it was completely fixed.

hat tip to the serb on the llvm bugtracker who took care of this.

Thanks,
Gagan

> On Jul 5, 2023, at 9:59 AM, syq at gcc dot gnu.org <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> 
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614
> 
> YunQiang Su <syq at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
> 
>           What    |Removed                     |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 CC|                            |syq at gcc dot gnu.org
> 
> --- Comment #21 from YunQiang Su <syq at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> I believe this problem has been addressed since
> 
> e08835fd3a4a6559b79c26db9b18df0e838d943e
> 
> 
> Can you have a test it?
> 
> -- 
> You are receiving this mail because:
> You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug sanitizer/105614] mips64: sanitizer_platform_limits_linux.cpp:75:38: error: static assertion failed

[syq at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105614

YunQiang Su <syq at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED
             Status|WAITING                     |RESOLVED

--- Comment #23 from YunQiang Su <syq at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed since
e08835fd3a4a6559b79c26db9b18df0e838d943e