From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-335288-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 22313 invoked by alias); 10 Jan 2013 11:31:08 -0000
Received: (qmail 22304 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Jan 2013 11:31:07 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.4 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 11:30:59 +0000
Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12])	by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r0ABUraE013379	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK);	Thu, 10 Jan 2013 06:30:58 -0500
Received: from zalov.redhat.com (vpn1-4-71.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.4.71])	by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r0ABU9L5030729	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);	Thu, 10 Jan 2013 06:30:27 -0500
Received: from zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1])	by zalov.redhat.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r0ABU8ef024848;	Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:30:08 +0100
Received: (from jakub@localhost)	by zalov.cz (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id r0ABU8Cw024847;	Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:30:08 +0100
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 11:31:00 -0000
From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
To: Konstantin Serebryany <konstantin.s.serebryany@gmail.com>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, Dodji Seketeli <dodji@redhat.com>,        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>, Wei Mi <wmi@google.com>
Subject: Re: libsanitizer mege from upstream r171973
Message-ID: <20130110113008.GW7269@tucnak.redhat.com>
Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
References: <CAGQ9bdxfjWqRxBiictsbKQjvJ7Wz2qsSsgzbmoZyeMnZA48KZA@mail.gmail.com> <CAGQ9bdzbtJ3Fh1QzgqzOvMaxzm98ZnyjORk+wU46Kbi0KWwCyA@mail.gmail.com> <CAGQ9bdx9LW-GaLJz_1PEdsZ9v9LCeBpwv6R775dN1ha_raKMpQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130110105903.GV7269@tucnak.redhat.com> <CAGQ9bdzaeqSw=1q1gDX_3PP9M_jX65Zy62_mB-cfoyJ1vaP8sg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAGQ9bdzaeqSw=1q1gDX_3PP9M_jX65Zy62_mB-cfoyJ1vaP8sg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2013-01/txt/msg00531.txt.bz2

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 03:27:41PM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
> > So, I'd guard the prctl call with additional
> > #ifdef PR_SET_NAME
> 
> Ok.
> I'd prefer to guard the whole test with #if defined(__linux__) &&
> defined(PR_SET_NAME).

That is not sufficient.  You can have PR_SET_NAME defined in the headers,
but still the underlying kernel doesn't need to handle it.

> It is very likely that I will flip fast_unwind_on_fatal to 0 next week.

Perfect, thanks.

	Jakub