[llvm] r291918 - Fix UBSan bots by blacklisting bits/stl_tree.h.

[Ivan Krasin via llvm-commits]

Then it makes sense, but there is no strong sense of urgency here.

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote:

> The source is also released, so a user might build it with UBSan
> themselves, perhaps as part of a larger project they'd like to be
> UBSan clean?
>
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Ivan Krasin <krasin at google.com> wrote:
> > Probably not. This blacklist only applies to Clang profiled with UBSan,
> > which is not what we release. The end users won't see or use this
> blacklist.
> > Sorry, if the naming is confusing.
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Ivan Krasin via llvm-commits
> >> <llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >> > Author: krasin
> >> > Date: Fri Jan 13 11:30:10 2017
> >> > New Revision: 291918
> >> >
> >> > URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=291918&view=rev
> >> > Log:
> >> > Fix UBSan bots by blacklisting bits/stl_tree.h.
> >> >
> >> > Summary:
> >> > libstdc++ has some undefined behavior in bits/stl_tree.h that
> >> > has recently became excercised by some of the LLVM code.
> >> > Given that fixing libstdc++ will take years, adding the file
> >> > into a blacklist to fix bots seems like a necessity.
> >> >
> >> > Reviewers: vitalybuka
> >> >
> >> > Subscribers: llvm-commits, mgorny
> >> >
> >> > Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28686
> >>
> >> Should we merge this to 4.0?
> >>
> >> Probably not a huge benefit, but it seems pretty risk free, and maybe
> >> nice to have if someone tries to run ubsan on the released version.
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20170127/e9cf34d8/attachment.html>