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.

[Larisse Voufo]

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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)
>

Could "-fdefine-sized-deallocation" help here? This enforces
sized-deallocation with weak definitions.


>
>
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-commits mailing list
> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20150223/66def977/attachment.html>