On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 04:12:33PM +0400, Alexey Samsonov wrote:
> > Sure, worst case you keep it untested in your LLVM copy of libsanitizer
> > and we'll just need to fix it up during merges if something breaks.
> > If it will be used for GCC (and we have a P1 bug so it is a release blocker
> > if llvm-symbolizer is still used), then it will be tested there.
>
> Yes, I think that's what we should do in the short term.
> I've submitted (slightly edited) version of your patch to compiler-rt
> as r195837, I think
Thanks, once Kostya merges it in, I'll rework a patch for it (which
hopefully will not need to change anything in the sanitizer_common/
stuff, just Makefiles/configure and other stuff owned by GCC).
> it should work after the next merge to gcc. I've done a minimal
> testing of this change
> (built the runtime with -DSANITIZER_LIBBACKTRACE, headers provided,
> libbacktrace.a linked),
> and it "kind of" worked - libbacktrace functions were properly picked
> up, error callbacks was not called,
> but the symbolization didn't work either:
>
> Turns out libbacktrace doesn't work with executables produced by LLVM:
> emitted compile unit DIEs don't have neither
> "DW_AT_low_pc/DW_AT_high_pc" pair, nor DW_AT_ranges reference.
I'd call that a LLVM bug, not emitting those attributes on a CU sounds like
a flaw in it.
Jakub
