From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13358 invoked by alias); 19 Nov 2014 22:23:29 -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 13289 invoked by uid 48); 19 Nov 2014 22:23:25 -0000 From: "fxcoudert 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 22:23:00 -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: fxcoudert 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/msg02097.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63939 --- Comment #19 from Francois-Xavier Coudert --- (In reply to howarth from comment #18) > Why are we checking in these changes in a piecemeal fashion instead of > addressing all those failing test cases listed in the "Updated patch"? I don't know what you're doing, or others are doing. I'll speak for myself. I have done a patch for "running a clean asan testsuite with llvm-virtualizer present", sent it for review, committed it, then realized I had missed one C++ testcase, then committed that as follow-up. Those fixes were about darwin mangling/wrapping some function names differently than other platforms. I now intend to do a patch for "running clean asan testsuite without llvm-virtualizer present", which is a different problem altogether: as Dominique noted, there are extra blanks in the output, so we need another adjustment to the test patterns. I did this one later, because it's orthogonal to the previous one, and also because these regexp patterns make my head hurt. Initially, I didn't see the logic in Dominique's patch (because he put the extra space in the middle of the pattern, and it confused me).