Re: [PATCH] asan unit tests from llvm lit-test incremental changes

[Dodji Seketeli <dodji@redhat.com>]

Hello,

Independently of this review, I think it's be interesting to hear
Kostya's voice on:

Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> writes:

> 2) In large-func-test-1.C, I had to stop matching the backtrace after
> _Znw[jm], because libasan is using the fast but inaccurate backtrace,
> and while the tests can be easily tweaked to compile with
> -fno-omit-frame-pointer, we definitely can't rely on libstdc++.so to be
> built with that option.  Most likely it isn't.  I repeat that I think
> that at least for Linux libasan should use the _Unwind* based backtrace
> at least for the fatal functions (__asan_report* etc.), and perhaps for
> these malloc wrappers like ::operator new, ::operator new[] and their
> const std::nothrow_t& variants libasan could intercept them, call
> malloc and if that returns NULL, call the original corresponding function
> so that it deals with exceptions, new handler etc.

and on:

> 3) deep-thread-stack-1.C fails for me right now with some libasan assertion,
> Kostya, can you please look at that?
>   AsanThread *t = asanThreadRegistry().GetCurrent();
>   CHECK(t);
> where it failed on the CHECK, because t was NULL.  I've skipped the test for
> now.

[...]

> --- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/asan/deep-tail-call-1.C.jj	2012-12-04 20:24:10.000000000 +0100
> +++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/asan/deep-tail-call-1.C	2012-12-05 11:01:48.600443834 +0100
> @@ -1,21 +1,22 @@
> -// { dg-do run } 
> +// { dg-do run }
>  // { dg-options "-fno-omit-frame-pointer -fno-optimize-sibling-calls" }
>  // { dg-additional-options "-mno-omit-leaf-frame-pointer" { target { i?86-*-* x86_64-*-* } } }
> -// { dg-shouldfail "asan" } 
> +// { dg-shouldfail "asan" }
>  
>  int global[10];
>  void __attribute__((noinline)) call4(int i) { global[i+10]++; }
>  void __attribute__((noinline)) call3(int i) { call4(i); }
>  void __attribute__((noinline)) call2(int i) { call3(i); }
>  void __attribute__((noinline)) call1(int i) { call2(i); }
> -int main(int argc, char **argv) {
> -  call1(argc);
> +volatile int one = 1;

Just curious, why do we need this variable to be volatile, especially
since the test is compiled without optimization?

> +int main() {
> +  call1(one);
>    return global[0];
>  }

[...]

The patch looks OK to me in any case.

Thanks.

-- 
		Dodji