| Message ID | 1424987544.7396.169.camel@otta |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 03:52:24PM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote: > The upstream libsanitizer code has been modified to support powerpc64le-linux, > but we seemed to have forgot to enable it being built by default on LE. > I applied the patch below and ran the testsuite and the test results look > similar to the BE results, maybe even a little better. I believe they > should look even better the next time we merge in the upstream ASAN code. > Ok for trunk? ...and is this ok now or should it wait for stage1? How do make check results (asan.exp/ubsan.exp) look like on ppc64le? If it works as good as or better as ppc64be, then I'm fine with adding it even in stage4. Jakub
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 03:52:24PM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote: >> The upstream libsanitizer code has been modified to support powerpc64le-linux, >> but we seemed to have forgot to enable it being built by default on LE. >> I applied the patch below and ran the testsuite and the test results look >> similar to the BE results, maybe even a little better. I believe they >> should look even better the next time we merge in the upstream ASAN code. >> Ok for trunk? ...and is this ok now or should it wait for stage1? > > How do make check results (asan.exp/ubsan.exp) look like on ppc64le? > If it works as good as or better as ppc64be, then I'm fine with adding it > even in stage4. Okay with me if Jakub is satisfied. Thanks, David
On Thu, 2015-02-26 at 22:56 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > How do make check results (asan.exp/ubsan.exp) look like on ppc64le? > If it works as good as or better as ppc64be, then I'm fine with adding it > even in stage4. They have the same exact failures in ubsan and ppc64le has fewer asan failures than ppc64be and all of the ppc64le failures are also failures in ppc64be, so ppc64le is actually in better shape than ppc64be. Peter
On Thu, 2015-02-26 at 20:04 -0600, Peter Bergner wrote: > On Thu, 2015-02-26 at 22:56 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > How do make check results (asan.exp/ubsan.exp) look like on ppc64le? > > If it works as good as or better as ppc64be, then I'm fine with adding it > > even in stage4. > > They have the same exact failures in ubsan and ppc64le has fewer asan > failures than ppc64be and all of the ppc64le failures are also failures > in ppc64be, so ppc64le is actually in better shape than ppc64be. Ok, since the results met your criteria for inclusion, I committed the change as revision 221060. Thanks. Peter
On 2015.02.27 at 07:47 -0600, Peter Bergner wrote: > > Ok, since the results met your criteria for inclusion, I committed the > change as revision 221060. Thanks. Are there any plans to fix: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63927 ?
On Fri, 2015-02-27 at 15:30 +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > On 2015.02.27 at 07:47 -0600, Peter Bergner wrote: > > > > Ok, since the results met your criteria for inclusion, I committed the > > change as revision 221060. Thanks. > > Are there any plans to fix: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63927 ? This is the first time I've seen this. I haven't heard of this being an issue before either. That said, we'll have a look into this, but probably not in time for GCC 5.0, since we have other real bugs we're working on that have to get fixed first. Peter
Index: libsanitizer/configure.tgt =================================================================== --- libsanitizer/configure.tgt (revision 221015) +++ libsanitizer/configure.tgt (working copy) @@ -28,9 +28,6 @@ TSAN_TARGET_DEPENDENT_OBJECTS=tsan_rtl_amd64.lo fi ;; - powerpc*le-*-linux*) - UNSUPPORTED=1 - ;; powerpc*-*-linux*) ;; sparc*-*-linux*)