[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Address sanitizer regression test failures for PPC64 targets (original) (raw)

Hal Finkel hfinkel at anl.gov
Wed Oct 1 10:30:50 PDT 2014

Samuel,

Was this ever resolved?

-Hal

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Samuel F Antao" <sfantao at us.ibm.com> > To: "will schmidt" <willschmidt at vnet.ibm.com> > Cc: "Clang Developers List" <cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "LLVM Dev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 10:40:06 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Address sanitizer regression test failures for PPC64 targets >>>>> Hi Will, >> Do the sanitizer tests work for you with gcc 4.9? I was using clang > 3.4.2 and started using clang 3.5.0. For both versions, I configured > clang to use the gcc 4.8.2 tooIchain. >> My understanding is that the compiler was not the problem but an > endianess issue in the sanitizer implementation that was causing > memory to get corrupted. The different versions of compiler just > caused the memory corruption to affect different ranges, causing > some tests that were not working to start working and vice-versa. >> I identified one of the places with the endianess issue in my > previous email. I'm unsure whether there are other places in the > code that only work for little endian. >> Thanks, > Samuel >> Inactive hide details for Will Schmidt ---09/26/2014 11:25:23 AM---On > Mon, 2014-09-08 at 22:00 -0400, Samuel F Antao wrote: > AWill > Schmidt ---09/26/2014 11:25:23 AM---On Mon, 2014-09-08 at 22:00 > -0400, Samuel F Antao wrote: > Alexey, Alexander, >> From: Will Schmidt <willschmidt at vnet.ibm.com> > To: Samuel F Antao/Watson/IBM at IBMUS > Cc: Alexander Potapenko <glider at google.com>, Clang Developers List > <cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu>, LLVM Dev <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Date: 09/26/2014 11:25 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Address sanitizer regression test > failures for PPC64 targets >>>>> On Mon, 2014-09-08 at 22:00 -0400, Samuel F Antao wrote: > > Alexey, Alexander, > > > > Thanks for the suggestions. I tried removing the flag SANODEFER > > but > > it didn't do any good... I have been digging into the problem with > > the > > nullderef test today but I was unable to clearly identify the > > problem. I suspect that it was either a bug with the calling > > convention/unwinding that lead to the flags() pointer to get > > corrupted. It is also possible that it was related with endianess > > issues caused by some bug in the pointer arithmetic inserted by the > > sanitizer code (there are many type and bit casts which makes hard > > to > > follow the >> > references). I decided to upgrade the compiler I was using to build > > clang which made the problem with this testcase to go away (!). >> Hi Samuel, > Which compiler versions were you using before/after ? At the moment, > I'm building with a gcc 4.9 snapshot, but can switch to something > newer > if you had a recommendation. >> Thanks, > -Will >>>> _________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >

Hal Finkel Assistant Computational Scientist Leadership Computing Facility Argonne National Laboratory