[cfe-dev] Why clang needs to fork into itself?
klimek at google.com
Tue Jan 28 23:40:55 PST 2014
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 8:05 AM, Ted Kremenek <kremenek at apple.com> wrote:
> If this can be done, then great.
> Yury Gribov’s point about stack smashing is a good one. We implemented
> such crash recovery mechanisms in libclang and libclang still takes down
> Xcode sometimes because of stack overflows due to unbounded recursion, etc.
> We’ve also noticed that when libclang “crashes” (and recovers) the overall
> process can be in an undefined state. Our experience is that such
> histrionics can provide an 80% solution, but we’ve never been all that
> satisfied with them. It may, however, be good enough for generating crash
> reports, but it seems like a lot of work to replace something we already
> have that works very well in practice.
One thing I'd be curious about:
What would be the downside of using the parent clang *just* as crash
reporter - and push all driver logic into the spawned process. The parent
clang would then forward all command line arguments literally, and then
just sit there, waiting for the crash, and if there is a crash scrap up all
it needs for the bug report.
That way, we could easily turn off forking and have equivalent behavior
minus crash reporting.
Is there a downside to that that I'm missing (apart from the time needed to
> On Jan 28, 2014, at 10:28 PM, Yuri <yuri at rawbw.com> wrote:
> > On 01/28/2014 22:04, Yury Gribov wrote:
> >> Makes sense but what if some important bits (say argv) are trashed by
> stack overflow
> > All information needed for crash reporting should be copied into the
> fixed memory area, and it should be made read-only for the duration of run.
> > Yuri
> > _______________________________________________
> > cfe-dev mailing list
> > cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cfe-dev