I added support for "LLVM_USE_SANITIZER" when building and testing last week.
I've also noticed that when I use cmake to build libc++ in tree there are already some existing messages about building different instrumented libc++ versions. I'm not quite sure what those are about though. They are not coming from libc++. /Eric On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Kostya Serebryany <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 2:31 AM, Evgeniy Stepanov < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> As Chandler said, disabling extern templates may help with some simple >> tests, but the only reliable way to get rid of MSan false positives is >> linking with instrumented libc++. >> >> We should concentrate on making is easier to build and use >> instrumented libc++ instead. >> > Yes, please! > >> >> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 6:30 AM, Eric Fiselier <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> FWIW, I don't think that MSan was *ever* intended to not have false >> >> positives with an uninstrumented standard library. So I really don't >> >> understand why this is an interesting thing to dig into. >> > >> > That is new information to me so I'll have to take that into >> consideration. >> > What I was trying to avoid was breaking MSAN usability for end users of >> > libc++. >> > Since its unlikely that they have a instrumented standard library it >> would >> > be nice if their system libc++ didn't always cause the first MSAN >> failure. >> > >> > Since __attribute__((__always_inline__)) seems to cause a lot of these >> > failures I imagine it is possible to reduce the FP's without removing >> the >> > extern template declarations. >> > In that case it might still be work putting time into. >> > >> > /Eric >> > >> > >> > On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 8:24 PM, Howard Hinnant < >> [email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Aug 17, 2014, at 9:26 PM, Justin Bogner <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Howard Hinnant <[email protected]> writes: >> >> >> On Aug 17, 2014, at 9:06 PM, Justin Bogner <[email protected]> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> I really don't think it's worth the cost of insantiating these very >> >> >>> fundamental templates in *every single user* to work around a >> >> >>> limitation >> >> >>> in the memory sanitizer. This is an unreasonable amount of overhead >> >> >>> for >> >> >>> standard library types. >> >> >> >> >> >> Always measure. I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m saying you’re >> >> >> stating a performance conclusion without measurements (which should >> >> >> never be acceptable). >> >> > >> >> > I did measure :) Though, I sent it to llvm-dev and it probably >> should've >> >> > been cfe-dev. Sorry about that. >> >> > >> >> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2014-August/075793.html >> >> >> >> Ah, I have not been monitoring llvm-dev. Thank you for the link. >> >> >> >> Howard >> >> >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > cfe-commits mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> cfe-commits mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >> > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
