[LLVMdev] AddressSanitizer+CMake unittest question

[Chandler Carruth]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 12:37 AM, Alexey Samsonov <samsonov at google.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:38 AM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Context: I'm trying to implement support for ASan's unittest suite in CMake. This is ... quite challenging.
>> >>>
>> >>> I think I can get it to work with one significant caveat: it will require manual dependency management. None of the automatic header tracking. I think this is fine in some cases, and not so fine in other cases. Let me explain.
>> >>>
>> >>> It feels like these tests are really comprised of two distinct collections of tests:
>> >>>
>> >>> 1) Those that rather directly test the ASan runtime. These do not rely upon the compiler instrumenting the code, and simply exercise the runtime library directly.
>> >>> 2) Those that expect to be instrumented by the compiler, and exercise the runtime through GoogleTest's death tests on seemingly innocuous code.
>> >>>
>> >>> For the first bucket, there is no problem. We should be able to handle these easily.
>> >>>
>> >>> For the second bucket, this can be a bit tricky. It requires compiling the tests with a custom compiler and flags. Let's talk about the options for supporting this case.
>> >>>
>> >>> A) We could require the host compiler to have support for -faddress-sanitizer, but ensure that the just-built runtime library is used rather than the host compiler's runtime library.
>> >>> B) We can depend upon the Clang built in the same LLVM/Clang/CompilerRT checkout, and provide a custom compilation strategy to use it to instrument the unittest code.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Option A has fairly obvious problems: it introduces version skew into the equation, and would require a full bootstrap to test new instrumentation. However, it plays very nicely with the build system, requiring no special magic. It also would "Just Work" in the cross-compilation scenario, as much as any unittest would.
>> >>>
>> >>> Option B avoids any version skew issues, but at the cost of requiring us to implement a "complete" custom compilation strategy for these source files. At the very least, this will not be portable and thus will only be enabled on a few platforms, and it will not get automatic header dependency tracking.
>> >
>> >
>> > B is highly preferable.
>> > I.e.:
>> >   1. Build clang
>> >   2. Build asan-rt (doesn't not matter with which compiler)
>> >   3. build asan-rt-tests using clang from #1
>> > This is what we use now anyway.
>> > There could of course be dependencies between asan-rt and asan-rt-tests, but even worth, there could be dependencies between the instrumentation module in LLVM and asan-rt-tests.
>>
>> Ok... :: sigh :: Have to go and make this hard on me.
>>
>> An additional constraint that would make this slightly easier: for the
>> tests which require instrumentation, could they strictly avoid
>> including headers outside of the test-helper headers? That is, none of
>> the libasan headers themselves.
>
>
> Um, I guess so. AFAIR, it is true even now. I assume, including gtest headers is a
> separate problem?

I can make that work through dirty dirty hacks. The various different
sanitizer runtimes are actually harder to track and predict.