[LLVMdev] Remaining Compiler-RT failures in ARM (original) (raw)

Evgeniy Stepanov eugenis at google.com
Fri Oct 10 03:55:38 PDT 2014

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 8:29 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:

Folks,

As of this run: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-armv7-a15-full/builds/746 There are three classes of failures that need fixing before we get the bot green: 1. AddressSanitizer.BuiltinLongJmpTest Unit Test Two configurations fail: * Asan-arm-inline-Test * Asan-arm-with-calls-Test I wonder what's the best way to run it individually and reduce the error. I'm not very proficient with the unit tests, and I'd be happy with some documentation on how to reduce them.

2. Illegal instruction * AddressSanitizer-arm-linux :: TestCases/mmaplimitmb.cc * UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer-Standalone :: TestCases/Misc/bounds.cpp That board doesn't have NEON. It's uncommon for an ARMv7 SoC to not have it, but some don't (for example, NVidia Tegra3), so we can't assume they all have. The CMake option clearly had "-mfpu=vfpv3" on both C and C++ flags and the tests should honour that. This is a wider problem, and the test-suite buildbots also don't honour it and fail on non-NEON ARMv7 boards. I'm not an expert in CMake and even less so in Compiler-RT's setup for the tests, so pointers on how to fix this would be very welcome.

Are you saying that CMAKE_C_FLAGS from LLVM tree are not used in compiler-rt?

This is way too complicated. We've got COMPILER_RT_TEST_COMPILER_CFLAGS but they don't seem to be set in non-standalone build ever. Alexey, do we simply miss an assignment somewhere, or did you have something else in mind?

3. UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer-Standalone :: TestCases/Misc/missingreturn.cpp This test fails on Standalone and pass on AddressSanitizer mode, making it impossible to mark it as XFAIL. Before making XFAIL more powerful, I'd rather find the problem and try to solve it. The file checks for two copies of missingreturn.cpp, one for f() and one for main(), but on ARM's stack trace, there's only one: $ UBSANOPTIONS=printstacktrace=1 ./missingreturn.cpp.tmp .../compiler-rt/test/ubsan/TestCases/Misc/missingreturn.cpp:6:5: runtime error: execution reached the end of a value-returning function without returning a value #0 0x1c7cf in f() .../compiler-rt/test/ubsan/TestCases/Misc/missingreturn.cpp:6:9 _#1 0x195cf in ubsan::ScopedReport::~ScopedReport() .../compiler-rt/lib/ubsan/ubsandiag.cc:341 _#2 0x1ae79 in handleMissingReturnImpl(ubsan::UnreachableData*, _ubsan::ReportOptions) [clone .constprop.7] .../compiler-rt/lib/ubsan/ubsanhandlers.cc:254 _#3 0x1b31f in ubsanhandlemissingreturn .../compiler-rt/lib/ubsan/ubsanhandlers.cc:259 Maybe the stack is not deep enough? Is it really necessary to get for main in the stack trace? cheers, --renato

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list