Sent from my iPad

> On Oct 16, 2016, at 10:52 PM, Kang Kai <kai.k...@windriver.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2016年10月14日 17:32, Khem Raj wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Kang Kai <kai.k...@windriver.com> wrote:
>>> On 2016年10月13日 22:59, Burton, Ross wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 13 October 2016 at 15:40, Kang Kai <kai.k...@windriver.com> wrote:
>>>> gcc checks tsan and lsan support in source file
>>>> gcc/libsanitizer/configure.tgt, it seems only support x86_64. Then tsan and
>>>> lsan related packages will be empty for other target.
>>>> For qemuarm project, add in local.conf:
>>>> 
>>>> IMAGE_INSTALL_append = " libtsan"
>>> 
>>> If libtsan is x86-64 only, why not only add it for x86-64 images?  The
>>> package not existing on machines it can't be built for is more obvious than
>>> existing but being empty.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The real scenario is for x86-64 kernel with x86 rootfs. We created a
>>> template to enable gcc sanitize support. It just simple adds sanitize
>>> related packages to image:
>>> 
>>> LIBX_DEV ?= ""
>>> LIBX_DEV_x86-64 = "liblsan-dev libtsan-dev"
>>> 
>>> IMAGE_INSTALL += " \
>>>     gcc-sanitizers \
>>>     libasan-dev \
>>>     libubsan-dev \
>>>     ${LIBX_DEV} \
>>> "
>>> 
>>> When multilib is enabled, it fails for x86-64 kernel with x86 rootfs such as
>>> lib32-xxx-image on qemux86-64. Var IMAGE_INSTALL will be expand with prefix
>>> lib32 but lib32-lsan* and lib32-tsan* are empty then cause the failures.
>> perhaps we should build sanitizers for multilib too ?
> 
> The problem is that thread and leak sanitizers are not supported for x86 by 
> checking in gcc/libsanitizer/configure.tgt:
> 
> 
> # Filter out unsupported systems.
> TSAN_TARGET_DEPENDENT_OBJECTS=
> case "${target}" in
>  x86_64-*-linux* | i?86-*-linux*)
>        if test x$ac_cv_sizeof_void_p = x8; then
>                TSAN_SUPPORTED=yes
>                LSAN_SUPPORTED=yes
>                TSAN_TARGET_DEPENDENT_OBJECTS=tsan_rtl_amd64.lo
>        fi
>        ;;
> ...
> 
> that causes packages lib32-lsan* and lib32-tsan* are empty.

Ok then may be keeping the empty packages is ok even though not optimal
> 
> 
> --Kai
> 
>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Kai
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Ross
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>> Neil | Kai Kang
> 
> 
> -- not 
> Regards,
> Neil | Kai Kang
> 
-- 
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

Reply via email to