[PATCH] D41054: Teach clang/NetBSD about additional dependencies for sanitizers

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rC321060: Teach clang/NetBSD about additional dependencies for sanitizers (authored by kamil, committed by ). Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D41054 Files:

[PATCH] D41054: Teach clang/NetBSD about additional dependencies for sanitizers

krytarowski added a comment. Ping? Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D41054 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

[PATCH] D41054: Teach clang/NetBSD about additional dependencies for sanitizers

krytarowski added a comment. In particular, this issue has been detected with dtls_test.c (MSan test), but it is valid to every program checking dlerror(). I've pluged more missing symbols through https://reviews.llvm.org/D41053, there are still few but I'm now busy with teaching sanitizers

[PATCH] D41054: Teach clang/NetBSD about additional dependencies for sanitizers

eugenis added a comment. Yes, I support adding -lutil - sorry I was not clear about that. By dlerror() errors, do you mean the warnings about missing interceptors that appear with verbosity=1 (non-fatal), or something else? Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D41054

[PATCH] D41054: Teach clang/NetBSD about additional dependencies for sanitizers

krytarowski added a comment. `-lutil` is just the same case as `-lrt` or `-lm` here. The potential problem with with autoconf and similar is the design problem, not NetBSD linking here with -lutil. Without this -lutil, every sanitizer with interceptors will generate spurious dlerror() errors

[PATCH] D41054: Teach clang/NetBSD about additional dependencies for sanitizers

eugenis added a comment. One problem with interceptors is that any sanitized binary looks (to a configure-like script) as if it implements forkpty. But an attempt to use forkpty without actually linking -lutil will fail at runtime, because interceptors are just wrappers. Repository: rL

[PATCH] D41054: Teach clang/NetBSD about additional dependencies for sanitizers

krytarowski added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D41054#955755, @joerg wrote: > I'm not really a fan of linking libutil into all binaries. Why is this code > using forkpty in first place and not posix_openpt/grantpt? pid_t forkpty(int *amaster, char *name, struct termios *term,

[PATCH] D41054: Teach clang/NetBSD about additional dependencies for sanitizers

joerg added a comment. I'm not really a fan of linking libutil into all binaries. Why is this code using forkpty in first place and not posix_openpt/grantpt? Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D41054 ___ cfe-commits mailing list

[PATCH] D41054: Teach clang/NetBSD about additional dependencies for sanitizers

krytarowski created this revision. krytarowski added a project: Sanitizers. Sanitizers on NetBSD require additional linkage: - libutil for forkpty(3) - libexecinfo for backtrace(3) Sponsored by Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D41054 Files: