ASAN merge...

ASAN merge...

[David Miller]

This has broken the build on every Linux target that hasn't added
the necessary cpu specific code to asan_linux.cc

I'm working on the sparc bits, but I'm really surprised this
happened.

Re: ASAN merge...

[Diego Novillo]

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:07 AM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
>
> This has broken the build on every Linux target that hasn't added
> the necessary cpu specific code to asan_linux.cc

This should be fixed by Dodji's recent patch.  ASAN is not currently
ported to any target other than x86/linux, so it should just be
completely disabled until the other ports start showing up.

Dodji is your patch committed?


Diego.

Re: ASAN merge...

[H.J. Lu]

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Diego Novillo <dnovillo@google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:07 AM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
>>
>> This has broken the build on every Linux target that hasn't added
>> the necessary cpu specific code to asan_linux.cc
>
> This should be fixed by Dodji's recent patch.  ASAN is not currently
> ported to any target other than x86/linux, so it should just be
> completely disabled until the other ports start showing up.
>
> Dodji is your patch committed?
>

What should we do with

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg00951.html

Linux/x32 support is only tested with GCC.  Right now bootstrap
is broken on Linux/x32 since libsanitizer won't compile on Linux/x32.

-- 
H.J.

Re: ASAN merge...

[David Miller]

From: Diego Novillo <dnovillo@google.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 11:21:59 -0500

> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:07 AM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
>>
>> This has broken the build on every Linux target that hasn't added
>> the necessary cpu specific code to asan_linux.cc
> 
> This should be fixed by Dodji's recent patch.  ASAN is not currently
> ported to any target other than x86/linux, so it should just be
> completely disabled until the other ports start showing up.
> 
> Dodji is your patch committed?

So I wasted my time by writing the sparc bits necessary to fix
the build?

Please leave enabled the platforms that do actually build.

Thanks.

Re: ASAN merge...

[Konstantin Serebryany]

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Diego Novillo <dnovillo@google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:07 AM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
>>
>> This has broken the build on every Linux target that hasn't added
>> the necessary cpu specific code to asan_linux.cc
>
> This should be fixed by Dodji's recent patch.  ASAN is not currently
> ported to any target other than x86/linux, so it should just be

asan run-time (and the LLVM part) works on Mac and on ARM/Linux.
But I'd suggest not to worry about any platforms other than
x86_{32,64}/Linux until the whole thing
(including tests) is fully integrated.

--kcc

> completely disabled until the other ports start showing up.
>
> Dodji is your patch committed?
>
>
> Diego.

Re: ASAN merge...

[Ramana Radhakrishnan]

On 13 Nov 2012, at 21:18, Konstantin Serebryany <konstantin.s.serebryany@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Diego Novillo <dnovillo@google.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:07 AM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> This has broken the build on every Linux target that hasn't added
>>> the necessary cpu specific code to asan_linux.cc
>> 
>> This should be fixed by Dodji's recent patch.  ASAN is not currently
>> ported to any target other than x86/linux, so it should just be
> 
> asan run-time (and the LLVM part) works on Mac and on ARM/Linux.

And when you say ARM / Linux, has this been tested on older versions of the architecture or just v7-a ? 


> But I'd suggest not to worry about any platforms other than
> x86_{32,64}/Linux until the whole thing
> (including tests) is fully integrated.
> 


Ramana

> --kcc
> 
>> completely disabled until the other ports start showing up.
>> 
>> Dodji is your patch committed?
>> 
>> 
>> Diego.

Re: ASAN merge...

[Andrew Pinski]

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
<ramana.gcc@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 13 Nov 2012, at 21:18, Konstantin Serebryany <konstantin.s.serebryany@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Diego Novillo <dnovillo@google.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:07 AM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This has broken the build on every Linux target that hasn't added
>>>> the necessary cpu specific code to asan_linux.cc
>>>
>>> This should be fixed by Dodji's recent patch.  ASAN is not currently
>>> ported to any target other than x86/linux, so it should just be
>>
>> asan run-time (and the LLVM part) works on Mac and on ARM/Linux.
>
> And when you say ARM / Linux, has this been tested on older versions of the architecture or just v7-a ?

And this arm is really arm32 and not ARM64 :).  People need to start
calling it arm32 to make sure they don't get confused between the two
different architectures.

Thanks
Andrew


>
>
>> But I'd suggest not to worry about any platforms other than
>> x86_{32,64}/Linux until the whole thing
>> (including tests) is fully integrated.
>>
>
>
> Ramana
>
>> --kcc
>>
>>> completely disabled until the other ports start showing up.
>>>
>>> Dodji is your patch committed?
>>>
>>>
>>> Diego.

Re: ASAN merge...

[Konstantin Serebryany]

+eugenis@google.com

>>>
>>> asan run-time (and the LLVM part) works on Mac and on ARM/Linux.
>>
>> And when you say ARM / Linux, has this been tested on older versions of the architecture or just v7-a ?

Evgeniy is better equipped to answer this.
At some point we've been testing asan on the actual ARM32/Linux, now
we only run it on fresh Android devices.
I don't expect any serious problems with older versions of ARM32.

>
> And this arm is really arm32 and not ARM64 :).  People need to start
> calling it arm32 to make sure they don't get confused between the two
> different architectures.

done

--kcc

Re: ASAN merge...

[Ramana Radhakrishnan]

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 10:41 PM, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
> <ramana.gcc@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 13 Nov 2012, at 21:18, Konstantin Serebryany <konstantin.s.serebryany@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Diego Novillo <dnovillo@google.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:07 AM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> This has broken the build on every Linux target that hasn't added
>>>>> the necessary cpu specific code to asan_linux.cc
>>>>
>>>> This should be fixed by Dodji's recent patch.  ASAN is not currently
>>>> ported to any target other than x86/linux, so it should just be
>>>
>>> asan run-time (and the LLVM part) works on Mac and on ARM/Linux.
>>
>> And when you say ARM / Linux, has this been tested on older versions of the architecture or just v7-a ?
>
> And this arm is really arm32 and not ARM64 :).

Being an incorrigible pedant  :)

Technically the 32 bit and the 64 bit execution states are AArch32 and
AArch64 as documented in the glossary on infocenter [1] . So if you
are inventing a term to distinguish between the two I would prefer
AArch32 rather than arm32 and arm64 because they don't come in any
documentation neither in the compiler source nor in the documentation
as it exists today - I do realize history and legacy have a part to
play but if you want a new term .....

Regards,
Ramana

1. http://infocenter.arm.com/help/index.jsp?topic=/com.arm.doc.aeg0014e/ABCDEFGH.html

Re: ASAN merge...

[Dodji Seketeli]

Diego Novillo <dnovillo@google.com> writes:

> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:07 AM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
>>
>> This has broken the build on every Linux target that hasn't added
>> the necessary cpu specific code to asan_linux.cc
>
> This should be fixed by Dodji's recent patch.  ASAN is not currently
> ported to any target other than x86/linux, so it should just be
> completely disabled until the other ports start showing up.
>
> Dodji is your patch committed?

Yes it is.  It was even ironed out by a later patch from Richard
Henderson.  This should hopefully be fixed now.

-- 
		Dodji

Re: ASAN merge...

[Dodji Seketeli]

David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> writes:

> From: Diego Novillo <dnovillo@google.com>
> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 11:21:59 -0500
>
>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:07 AM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> This has broken the build on every Linux target that hasn't added
>>> the necessary cpu specific code to asan_linux.cc
>> 
>> This should be fixed by Dodji's recent patch.  ASAN is not currently
>> ported to any target other than x86/linux, so it should just be
>> completely disabled until the other ports start showing up.
>> 
>> Dodji is your patch committed?
>
> So I wasted my time by writing the sparc bits necessary to fix
> the build?

I don't think you wasted your time.  The work you did is certainly
necessary.


However, it is probably not sufficient because besides the runtime
libsanitizer library, asan needs the target hook asan_shadow_offset() to
be defined for your target.  To date, that hook is only defined for x86
in config/i386/i386.c to ix86_asan_shadow_offset.  This is the 'offset'
used to compute the address of the shadow memory region for a given
address like in:

    shadow = address >> 3 + offset

That amounts to saying that for x86, the shadow memory is placed at the
bottom of the virtual memory space, as explained at
http://code.google.com/p/address-sanitizer/wiki/AddressSanitizerAlgorithm#Mapping.

I don't know if that mapping would work for sparc, though.

> Please leave enabled the platforms that do actually build.

I guess we could do that.  That would build libsanitizer, but asan will
still not be available on sparc if the asan_shadow_offset() target hook
is not provided.  Is that OK to you?

If it is, then I guess the patch below should do the trick?

diff --git a/libsanitizer/configure.tgt b/libsanitizer/configure.tgt
index ca7ac1f..988312e 100644
--- a/libsanitizer/configure.tgt
+++ b/libsanitizer/configure.tgt
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@
 
 # Filter out unsupported systems.
 case "${target}" in
-  x86_64-*-linux* | i?86-*-linux*)
+  x86_64-*-linux* | i?86-*-linux* | sparc*-*-linux*)
 	;;
   *)
 	UNSUPPORTED=1

Cheers.

-- 
		Dodji

Re: ASAN merge...

[Richard Earnshaw]

On 13/11/12 22:41, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
> <ramana.gcc@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 13 Nov 2012, at 21:18, Konstantin Serebryany <konstantin.s.serebryany@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Diego Novillo <dnovillo@google.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:07 AM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> This has broken the build on every Linux target that hasn't added
>>>>> the necessary cpu specific code to asan_linux.cc
>>>>
>>>> This should be fixed by Dodji's recent patch.  ASAN is not currently
>>>> ported to any target other than x86/linux, so it should just be
>>>
>>> asan run-time (and the LLVM part) works on Mac and on ARM/Linux.
>>
>> And when you say ARM / Linux, has this been tested on older versions of the architecture or just v7-a ?
>
> And this arm is really arm32 and not ARM64 :).  People need to start
> calling it arm32 to make sure they don't get confused between the two
> different architectures.
>

Please please don't get into the habit of calling it ARM32 and ARM64, 
you're just sowing confusion; there are good reasons why those names 
weren't adopted (some technical, some not) and I'm not about to rehash 
them all now.  AArch32 and AArch64 aren't that much harder to type and 
they are completely unambiguous.

If nothing else, remember that there were arm3 and arm6 chips at one 
time, so we have patterns that match arm3* and arm6* to match those CPUs 
(because people keep insisting on adding miscellaneous junk at the end 
of the CPU field).  At all costs we need to avoid getting false matches 
in here, or chaos will ensue.

The architecture overall is ARM, the operating states within it are 
AArch32 and AArch64.  There is no ARM32 and there is no ARM64.

R.

> Thanks
> Andrew
>
>
>>
>>
>>> But I'd suggest not to worry about any platforms other than
>>> x86_{32,64}/Linux until the whole thing
>>> (including tests) is fully integrated.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Ramana
>>
>>> --kcc
>>>
>>>> completely disabled until the other ports start showing up.
>>>>
>>>> Dodji is your patch committed?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Diego.
>

Re: ASAN merge...

[David Miller]

From: Dodji Seketeli <dodji@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:26:40 +0100

> I guess we could do that.  That would build libsanitizer, but asan will
> still not be available on sparc if the asan_shadow_offset() target hook
> is not provided.  Is that OK to you?

Yes.

Re: ASAN merge...

[Andrew Haley]

On 11/14/2012 01:49 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:

> Please please don't get into the habit of calling it ARM32 and ARM64, 
> you're just sowing confusion; there are good reasons why those names 
> weren't adopted (some technical, some not) and I'm not about to rehash 
> them all now.  AArch32 and AArch64 aren't that much harder to type and 
> they are completely unambiguous.

And they can't be pronounced in any reasonable way.  I think
you're going to lose this one.

Andrew

Re: ASAN merge...

[Ian Lance Taylor]

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 1:54 AM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 11/14/2012 01:49 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>
>> Please please don't get into the habit of calling it ARM32 and ARM64,
>> you're just sowing confusion; there are good reasons why those names
>> weren't adopted (some technical, some not) and I'm not about to rehash
>> them all now.  AArch32 and AArch64 aren't that much harder to type and
>> they are completely unambiguous.
>
> And they can't be pronounced in any reasonable way.  I think
> you're going to lose this one.

I expect it's pronounced with a sort of throat-clearing noise that is
hard to write.  Sort of like the gargling sound represented by "argh."
 argh32 and argh64.

Ian

Re: ASAN merge...

[Richard Earnshaw]

On 16/11/12 15:35, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 1:54 AM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 11/14/2012 01:49 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>
>>> Please please don't get into the habit of calling it ARM32 and ARM64,
>>> you're just sowing confusion; there are good reasons why those names
>>> weren't adopted (some technical, some not) and I'm not about to rehash
>>> them all now.  AArch32 and AArch64 aren't that much harder to type and
>>> they are completely unambiguous.
>>
>> And they can't be pronounced in any reasonable way.  I think
>> you're going to lose this one.
>
> I expect it's pronounced with a sort of throat-clearing noise that is
> hard to write.  Sort of like the gargling sound represented by "argh."
>   argh32 and argh64.
>
> Ian
>

No, its pronounced Ay-Arch.  It's not really hard to say, or think.

R.

Re: ASAN merge...

[Toon Moene]

On 11/16/2012 04:35 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:

> I expect it's pronounced with a sort of throat-clearing noise that is
> hard to write.  Sort of like the gargling sound represented by "argh."
>   argh32 and argh64.

I thought it was a nice way to enshrine a Monty Python joke into silicon.

-- 
Toon Moene - e-mail: toon@moene.org - phone: +31 346 214290
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG  Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
At home: http://moene.org/~toon/; weather: http://moene.org/~hirlam/
Progress of GNU Fortran: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortran#news