r230160 - Relax the requirement on sized deallocation a bit: Default on unsized delete if sized delete is not provided in global scope, and -fdefine-sized-deallocation option is disabled.

Kostya Serebryany kcc at google.com
Mon Feb 23 11:16:07 PST 2015


On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:07 AM, Timur Iskhodzhanov <timurrrr at google.com>
wrote:

> I'd like Kostya to comment.
>
> Green bots are no doubt better than red bots or no bots, but I'm not sure
> what level of ARM support our team has committed to.
>

I'f we've broke something on a public bot we better fix it or roll it back
(and then fix it)



>
> On Mon Feb 23 2015 at 1:43:10 PM Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On 23 February 2015 at 10:05, Timur Iskhodzhanov <timurrrr at google.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Kostya, what's our policy re: ARM sanitizer bots failures?
>>
>> Timur,
>>
>> As far as ARM buildbots are concerned, any breakage is critical. ARM,
>> like Intel, is a first-class architecture and we have to support it
>> fully. Whatever the buildbots pass today, they should pass tomorrow.
>> If we break that contract for one buildbot, we break for all of them,
>> and that is not acceptable.
>>
>> Your commit broke our bots by exposing a flaw in the sanitizer on the
>> ARM architecture. The correct way to deal with this is to revert the
>> patch and contact the bot owner, in this case, me, to fix the issue. I
>> can help you debug and even allow you into an ARM box at my house so
>> that you can do your tests, but as soon as we start marking
>> previously-passing tests as XFAIL or ignore broken bots, there will be
>> no stopping, and the quality of the whole toolchain will diminish.
>>
>> At Linaro, we have people working on both the address and the thread
>> sanitizers, and they can also work with you to fix the issue.
>>
>>
>> > This is a second revert in a row.
>>
>> I haven't reverted yet, just contacted the author of the patch to fix
>> it. If it's not possible to fix, or if other bugs start creeping in
>> (like was the case with your patch), I will revert them to help fix
>> the buildbot back to green. Another reason for reverting a patch that
>> is breaking a bot, is time. If the author doesn't respond in a day
>> after the initial breakage, we will revert the patch. That's standard
>> practice across all LLVM components / architectures.
>>
>> This may sound harsh, but a lot can happen in a day. This particular
>> failure is a clear demonstration of that, as it got introduced and
>> Larisse couldn't know, since the bot was already red.
>>
>>
>> > (see also r230019 where the failure happened after a trivial change)
>>
>> That trivial change has triggered a real bug in the sanitizer, and we
>> need to get at the bottom of that.
>>
>> According to the LLVM Developer Policy, patches submitted must not
>> regress on the make check or the test-suite on all supported
>> platforms. ARM is a supported platform for both Compiler-RT and ASAN,
>> so we should not regress.
>>
>> More importantly, you probably found a real bug in ASAN, and we should
>> be discussing how to fix *that*, instead of what's the policy on
>> reverting sanitizer changes because it fails on a platform that you're
>> not familiar with.
>>
>> cheers,
>> --renato
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20150223/2809dbcb/attachment.html>


More information about the cfe-commits mailing list