[PATCH] [LLVM] [sanitizer] add conditionals for libc

Bernhard Reutner-Fischer rep.dot.nop at gmail.com
Wed Apr 23 04:11:33 PDT 2014

On 23 April 2014 12:45, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
> <rep.dot.nop at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 23 April 2014 10:57, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote:

>> These things (e.g. glob_t members) do not change between glibc-releases,
>> so
>> i fail to see how this would be costly to maintain? It's pretty much a
>> one-time
>> thing to do IMO.
>> > So, before we continue with review I would like to hear the motivation
>> > and
>> The motivation behind this patch is that there are libc's apart from
>> glibc, and
>> these libc implementations, being POSIX compliant, may lack certain GNU
>> extensions (as implemented in glibc). As you can see in your own code, you
>> have gazillions of conditionals (preprocessor conditionals, which i add
>> just add
>> a couple of more, generic ones, btw, to answer your comment from above) to
>> handle these other libc's.
> Ok. What particular libc implementation are you trying to use?

I'm targeting uClibc.

> And what particular tool are you trying to use (asan, tsan, msan)?

When bootstrapping GCC the build fails IIRC in asan.

> Most of the things you hide under ifdefs are important only/mostly for msan,
> which does not exist in the GCC variant anyway.
>> The route this patch takes it to probe these non-standard things and
>> act accordingly.
>> > whether you are welling to help us maintain this code in future (= set
>> > up a public build bot)
>> I'm certainly willing to help maintain this code in the future since i
>> want to use
>> your nice sanitizers via gcc, sure. I cannot, however, setup a public
>> build-bot since
>> my notebook is not prepared to handle this task on a regular basis.
>> If you break stuff upstream and i find the backported gcc version to
>> be dysfunctional, i
>> will send you fixes if time permits.
> This round trip has very long latency and brings heavy burden on us (code
> maintainers).

I do not really understand where you see this heavy burden or a burden
at all TBH.
If you break my bootstrap with my libc then i'll fix it up, it will
not affect you folks at

> We are very reluctant to pay this price.
> Having a public bot for llvm upstream code will reduce this cost.

If you can provide a box where i can setup cross-compilers to act as
build-bots then that'd be doable, yes.

I personally do not have such a computer, unfortunately.
>> I think the patch itself is pretty straight forward,
> It is straight forward, but it is also huge.

I can break it up into small, logical pieces if you would accept those
more easily.

> Depending on your actual needs (see above) we might be able to do something
> *much* simpler.

The patch probes for very small, distinct aspects of GNU-extensions of POSIX
functions and disables them on an individual basis, reducing long-term
cost by adopting to different target-platforms seamlessly in
established manner (by
using autoconf resp. existing cmake Modules that are maintained in
upstream projects) instead of hard-coding meta-knowledge -- like

If you have a better idea or simpler idea then i'm all ears :)

> --kcc
>> please let me
>> know if you have specific
>> questions about a technical aspect of the patch.
>> Please apply.
>> thanks,
>> >
>> > http://reviews.llvm.org/D3464
>> >
>> >

More information about the llvm-commits mailing list