[compiler-rt] r269917 - [sanitizer] Fix a crash when demangling Swift symbols, take 3

[Kostya Serebryany via llvm-commits]

But you've reverted it right?
Please, do find another fix.
Otherwise the whole project will drown in #ifdefs

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 4:02 AM, Kuba Brecka <jbrecka at apple.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 18 May 2016, at 20:00, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Kuba Brecka via llvm-commits <
>> llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Author: kuba.brecka
>>> Date: Wed May 18 08:00:20 2016
>>> New Revision: 269917
>>>
>>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=269917&view=rev
>>> Log:
>>> [sanitizer] Fix a crash when demangling Swift symbols, take 3
>>>
>>> The previous patch (r269291) was reverted (commented out) because the
>>> patch caused leaks that
>>> were detected by LSan and they broke some lit tests.  The actual reason
>>> was that dlsym allocates
>>> an error string buffer in TLS, and some LSan lit tests are intentionally
>>> not scanning TLS for
>>> root pointers.  This patch simply makes LSan ignore the allocation from
>>> dlsym, because it's
>>> not interesting anyway.
>>>
>>>
>>> Modified:
>>>     compiler-rt/trunk/lib/asan/asan_rtl.cc
>>>     compiler-rt/trunk/lib/tsan/rtl/tsan_rtl.cc
>>>
>>> Modified: compiler-rt/trunk/lib/asan/asan_rtl.cc
>>> URL:
>>> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/compiler-rt/trunk/lib/asan/asan_rtl.cc?rev=269917&r1=269916&r2=269917&view=diff
>>>
>>> ==============================================================================
>>> --- compiler-rt/trunk/lib/asan/asan_rtl.cc (original)
>>> +++ compiler-rt/trunk/lib/asan/asan_rtl.cc Wed May 18 08:00:20 2016
>>> @@ -553,8 +553,14 @@ static void AsanInitInternal() {
>>>
>>>    InitializeSuppressions();
>>>
>>> -  // TODO(kuba) Fix Me.
>>> -  // Symbolizer::LateInitialize();
>>> +  {
>>> +#if CAN_SANITIZE_LEAKS
>>>
>>
>> This adds one more #ifdef.
>> Please, can we have fewer of those?
>>
>> if(CAN_SANITIZE_LEAKS) or similar would be much better!
>>
>>
>> Again, I’d love to use regular ifs, but I thought doing so causes linker
>> errors.  But, to my surprise, it seems that all my local builds work fine
>> -- it seems that Clang just removes if(0) blocks even in debug builds.  Is
>> that guaranteed?
>>
>
> I don't think this is really 100% guaranteed, but "if (0) code() " will
> usually be deleted even at -O0.
> If we see linker errors we should fix them by providing the stubs for
> functions where they are missing.
>
>
>> I committed r270038 to see how the other bots like this.
>>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>>
>> Kuba
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20160519/6ef02e54/attachment.html>