From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24374 invoked by alias); 19 Nov 2014 14:33:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 24166 invoked by uid 48); 19 Nov 2014 14:33:14 -0000 From: "iains at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug sanitizer/63939] [5 Regression] Massive asan failures (356) on darwin Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 14:33:00 -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: 5.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: iains at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 5.0 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2014-11/txt/msg01963.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63939 --- Comment #10 from Iain Sandoe --- (In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #9) > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8) > > No. libsanitizer is only supported on selected *-*-linux* targets, and > > (apparently prematurely so) on x86_64-*-darwin* and i?86-*-darwin*. AFAIK, sanitizer works fine on (x86) darwin "upstream" so we need to get to the bottom of what we're doing/testing differently here. > Fair enough, I didn't realize that. For a long time, libsanitizer broke > bootstrap on darwin so I was used to build without it. > > An option is to have a recent llvm-symbolizer in one's PATH while running > the test suite. The only small snag here is that llvm-symbolizer is not a 'standard tool' but requires a devt build of llvm. Probably doesn't matter to most serious darwin devs (since they'll likely have an llvm build anyway) - but there needs to be an availability check before relying on it. This brings the number of failures (make check-gcc > RUNTESTFLAGS="asan.exp") down from 60 to 36. (I will investigate the > remaining failures separately.) your count is much smaller than Dominique's is that after applying some other patch? FWIW, I also see huge failure counts on my x86-64-darwin12 builds.