[LLVMdev] Sanitizers libs in Compiler-RT
alp at nuanti.com
Thu Jan 30 11:35:49 PST 2014
On 30/01/2014 19:07, Renato Golin wrote:
> Hi all,
> Can anyone explain me what was the rationale behind putting the
> sanitizer libraries in compiler-rt?
> The sanitizers only work properly in x86_64 and I don't see anyone
> even testing to any other platform, while compiler-rt should be a
> substitute for libgcc on all platforms, at least that's the goal, and
> linking the success of the RT library to the success of the sanitizers
> is a bit of an oversight, IMHO.
> I'm spending 99% of the time to make compiler-rt compiler on ARM using
> CMake by fiddling the sanitizers' tests, lit config files and CMake
> scripts, which is a bit annoying...
> Long term, would it be possible / desirable to split them into
> compiler-rt and sanitizer-rt?
I don't know about the specific problems you've faced on ARM, but I'd
like to add that these problems also exist on x86, where the sanitizers
aren't fully supported on OS X, Windows or even various Linux
distributions outside the configuration the authors have.
Moreover the project seems to have a different development and review
policy to the rest of LLVM and it's been difficult at times to align
that with general interests on the clang side.
That said, let's engage the developers before jumping to conclusions.
The sanitizer work happens off in a corner and we tend to only notice it
when it gets in our way. If the sanitizers are spun off, it should be
done to make those developers work easier, not just ours.
the browser experts
More information about the llvm-dev