[cfe-dev] [LLVMdev] Sanitizers libs in Compiler-RT

[Reid Kleckner]

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>wrote:

> On 30 January 2014 20:33, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote:
>
>> Basically, compiler-rt contains the only runtime libraries we ship with
>> Clang.  The sanitizers are runtime libraries shipped with clang (they have
>> some version dependence), so they went in compiler-rt.  Now they are
>> starting to feel much larger than compiler-rt, so perhaps they should be
>> split out.
>>
>> Or we can leave them there and solve your ARM build problems a different
>> way.
>>
>
> Right, I apologise for my lack of specificity... I do remember that
> thread, what I was referring to was exactly what you said.
>
> My premise:
>
> 1. I want to make Compiler-RT work on ARM and be a drop-in replacement for
> libgcc, to the point where it'll become the standard compiler library for
> LLVM in the near future. My bold plans are to have that in 3.5, but I won't
> be unhappy if we at least get it working until then.
>
> 2. I don't want to have the huge effort right now, to port a library that
> was mainly developed by and on x86_64 *just because* I want compiler-rt to
> work on ARM.
>
> This can work in several ways:
>
> A. I compile the whole lot, but only grab the compiler-rt library when
> packaging.
> B. I change the CMalke files to only compiler RT on ARM, or any other
> architecture that wants only RT
> C. We split the libraries
>
> If the consensus is that the sanitizers are a lot bigger than RT and
> should split for that reason, I'm fine with it. If not, I'm also fine with
> having a CMake configuration to only build what's needed. I'd be less fine
> with compiling everything, testing (or ignoring) everything, because
> that'll strain our native bots (that are still dead slow) and will also
> increase the signal-to-noise ration on bugs and crashes, but ultimately, I
> would be ok with it, as a first approach.
>

I don't see any compelling reason to split the sanitizers out today.  I
think the sanitizer guys would probably take a patch to CMakeLists.txt to
disable the sanitizer RTLs.

I'm told that ASan supports ARM, but it's maybe not production quality, so
I don't think disabling all sanitizers on non-x86 architectures will work.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20140130/b7f595eb/attachment.html>