[Bug lto/79061] [7 Regression][LTO][ASAN] LTO plus ASAN fails with "AddressSanitizer: initialization-order-fiasco"

2017-02-03 Thread chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061 --- Comment #33 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: chefmax Date: Fri Feb 3 09:13:06 2017 New Revision: 245148 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245148=gcc=rev Log: PR lto/79061 * asan.c (asan_add_global): Force

[Bug lto/79061] [7 Regression][LTO][ASAN] LTO plus ASAN fails with "AddressSanitizer: initialization-order-fiasco"

2017-02-02 Thread chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061 --- Comment #32 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: chefmax Date: Fri Feb 3 07:17:38 2017 New Revision: 245144 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245144=gcc=rev Log: PR lto/79061 * asan.c (asan_add_global): Force

[Bug lto/79061] [7 Regression][LTO][ASAN] LTO plus ASAN fails with "AddressSanitizer: initialization-order-fiasco"

2017-01-30 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug lto/79061] [7 Regression][LTO][ASAN] LTO plus ASAN fails with "AddressSanitizer: initialization-order-fiasco"

2017-01-30 Thread chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061 --- Comment #30 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: chefmax Date: Mon Jan 30 16:06:15 2017 New Revision: 245033 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245033=gcc=rev Log: PR lto/79061 * asan.c (get_translation_unit_decl):

[Bug lto/79061] [7 Regression][LTO][ASAN] LTO plus ASAN fails with "AddressSanitizer: initialization-order-fiasco"

2017-01-26 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061 --- Comment #29 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Maxim Ostapenko from comment #28) > > In short, the easiest fix is just to disable the initialization order > > checking altogether for LTO (by forcing dynamically_initialized = 0 in LTO). >

[Bug lto/79061] [7 Regression][LTO][ASAN] LTO plus ASAN fails with "AddressSanitizer: initialization-order-fiasco"

2017-01-25 Thread m.ostapenko at samsung dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061 --- Comment #28 from Maxim Ostapenko --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #27) > I think the problem is in the vnode->dynamically_initialized handling, as > well as in get_translation_unit_decl being totally unreliable. > When LTO merges

[Bug lto/79061] [7 Regression][LTO][ASAN] LTO plus ASAN fails with "AddressSanitizer: initialization-order-fiasco"

2017-01-25 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061 --- Comment #27 from Jakub Jelinek --- I think the problem is in the vnode->dynamically_initialized handling, as well as in get_translation_unit_decl being totally unreliable. When LTO merges VAR_DECLs from multiple TUs, it either should clear

[Bug lto/79061] [7 Regression][LTO][ASAN] LTO plus ASAN fails with "AddressSanitizer: initialization-order-fiasco"

2017-01-25 Thread m.ostapenko at samsung dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061 --- Comment #26 from Maxim Ostapenko --- (In reply to Maxim Ostapenko from comment #24) > (In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #23) > > (In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #22) > > > As I recently did some incremental builds, I will retry

[Bug lto/79061] [7 Regression][LTO][ASAN] LTO plus ASAN fails with "AddressSanitizer: initialization-order-fiasco"

2017-01-25 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061 --- Comment #25 from Tobias Burnus --- (In reply to Maxim Ostapenko from comment #24) > Perhaps you use strict_init_order=true option (e.g. > ASAN_OPTIONS=check_initialization_order=true:report_globals=3: > strict_init_order=true)?

[Bug lto/79061] [7 Regression][LTO][ASAN] LTO plus ASAN fails with "AddressSanitizer: initialization-order-fiasco"

2017-01-25 Thread m.ostapenko at samsung dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061 --- Comment #24 from Maxim Ostapenko --- (In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #23) > (In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #22) > > As I recently did some incremental builds, I will retry it after a full > > bootstrap. > > Didn't make a

[Bug lto/79061] [7 Regression][LTO][ASAN] LTO plus ASAN fails with "AddressSanitizer: initialization-order-fiasco"

2017-01-25 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061 --- Comment #23 from Tobias Burnus --- (In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #22) > As I recently did some incremental builds, I will retry it after a full > bootstrap. Didn't make a difference - I still see the ASAN run-time fail. I wonder

[Bug lto/79061] [7 Regression][LTO][ASAN] LTO plus ASAN fails with "AddressSanitizer: initialization-order-fiasco"

2017-01-25 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061 --- Comment #22 from Tobias Burnus --- (In reply to Maxim Ostapenko from comment #21) > Strange, new testcase (with strdup) doesn't fail for me: [...] That's odd; I re-check with your options (except that g++ 7 is here in the PATH) and I still

[Bug lto/79061] [7 Regression][LTO][ASAN] LTO plus ASAN fails with "AddressSanitizer: initialization-order-fiasco"

2017-01-25 Thread m.ostapenko at samsung dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061 --- Comment #21 from Maxim Ostapenko --- (In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #20) > Created attachment 40574 [details] > New still failing test case (tar.gz), slightly modifying the previous one > > (In reply to chefmax from comment #19) >

[Bug lto/79061] [7 Regression][LTO][ASAN] LTO plus ASAN fails with "AddressSanitizer: initialization-order-fiasco"

2017-01-25 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061 --- Comment #20 from Tobias Burnus --- Created attachment 40574 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40574=edit New still failing test case (tar.gz), slightly modifying the previous one (In reply to chefmax from comment #19) >

[Bug lto/79061] [7 Regression][LTO][ASAN] LTO plus ASAN fails with "AddressSanitizer: initialization-order-fiasco"

2017-01-24 Thread chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061 --- Comment #19 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: chefmax Date: Wed Jan 25 07:45:40 2017 New Revision: 244890 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244890=gcc=rev Log: PR lto/79061 gcc/ * asan.c (get_translation_unit_decl):

[Bug lto/79061] [7 Regression][LTO][ASAN] LTO plus ASAN fails with "AddressSanitizer: initialization-order-fiasco"

2017-01-23 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug lto/79061] [7 Regression][LTO][ASAN] LTO plus ASAN fails with "AddressSanitizer: initialization-order-fiasco"

2017-01-23 Thread chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061 --- Comment #17 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: chefmax Date: Mon Jan 23 09:12:29 2017 New Revision: 244773 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244773=gcc=rev Log: Revert fix for PR lto/79061 due to this regresses compile-time by

[Bug lto/79061] [7 Regression][LTO][ASAN] LTO plus ASAN fails with "AddressSanitizer: initialization-order-fiasco"

2017-01-22 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug lto/79061] [7 Regression][LTO][ASAN] LTO plus ASAN fails with "AddressSanitizer: initialization-order-fiasco"

2017-01-18 Thread chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061 --- Comment #15 from chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: chefmax Date: Wed Jan 18 16:06:31 2017 New Revision: 244581 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=244581=gcc=rev Log: PR lto/79061 gcc/ * asan.c

[Bug lto/79061] [7 Regression][LTO][ASAN] LTO plus ASAN fails with "AddressSanitizer: initialization-order-fiasco"

2017-01-17 Thread m.ostapenko at samsung dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061 --- Comment #14 from Maxim Ostapenko --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13) > (In reply to Maxim Ostapenko from comment #12) > > Created attachment 40525 [details] > > Untested fix 2. > > > > The patch I'm testing now. > >

[Bug lto/79061] [7 Regression][LTO][ASAN] LTO plus ASAN fails with "AddressSanitizer: initialization-order-fiasco"

2017-01-17 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061 --- Comment #13 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Maxim Ostapenko from comment #12) > Created attachment 40525 [details] > Untested fix 2. > > The patch I'm testing now. DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION is streamed for all decls already: if

[Bug lto/79061] [7 Regression][LTO][ASAN] LTO plus ASAN fails with "AddressSanitizer: initialization-order-fiasco"

2017-01-16 Thread m.ostapenko at samsung dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061 Maxim Ostapenko changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #40514|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug lto/79061] [7 Regression][LTO][ASAN] LTO plus ASAN fails with "AddressSanitizer: initialization-order-fiasco"

2017-01-16 Thread m.ostapenko at samsung dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061 --- Comment #11 from Maxim Ostapenko --- (In reply to Maxim Ostapenko from comment #10) > Yeah, but it seems that lto doesn't propagate source location either: > > /* Output info about new location into bitpack BP. >After outputting

[Bug lto/79061] [7 Regression][LTO][ASAN] LTO plus ASAN fails with "AddressSanitizer: initialization-order-fiasco"

2017-01-16 Thread m.ostapenko at samsung dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061 --- Comment #10 from Maxim Ostapenko --- Yeah, but it seems that lto doesn't propagate source location either: /* Output info about new location into bitpack BP. After outputting bitpack, lto_output_location_data has to be done to output

[Bug lto/79061] [7 Regression][LTO][ASAN] LTO plus ASAN fails with "AddressSanitizer: initialization-order-fiasco"

2017-01-16 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- I think it is fine if it has DECL_NAME NULL, but it would be helpful if DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION of the TRANSLATION_UNIT_DECL was set to some location in the main input file (e.g. first column on first line of

[Bug lto/79061] [7 Regression][LTO][ASAN] LTO plus ASAN fails with "AddressSanitizer: initialization-order-fiasco"

2017-01-16 Thread m.ostapenko at samsung dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061 --- Comment #8 from Maxim Ostapenko --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7) > Comment on attachment 40514 [details] > Untested fix 1. > > But DECL_SOURCE_FILE is not the main input file of the TU that contains it, > if e.g. a variable

[Bug lto/79061] [7 Regression][LTO][ASAN] LTO plus ASAN fails with "AddressSanitizer: initialization-order-fiasco"

2017-01-13 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- Comment on attachment 40514 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40514 Untested fix 1. But DECL_SOURCE_FILE is not the main input file of the TU that contains it, if e.g. a variable is

[Bug lto/79061] [7 Regression][LTO][ASAN] LTO plus ASAN fails with "AddressSanitizer: initialization-order-fiasco"

2017-01-13 Thread m.ostapenko at samsung dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061 --- Comment #6 from Maxim Ostapenko --- Created attachment 40514 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40514=edit Untested fix 1. The fix I'm testing now. With this patch trivial example works and attached testcase doesn't raise

[Bug lto/79061] [7 Regression][LTO][ASAN] LTO plus ASAN fails with "AddressSanitizer: initialization-order-fiasco"

2017-01-12 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5

[Bug lto/79061] [7 Regression][LTO][ASAN] LTO plus ASAN fails with "AddressSanitizer: initialization-order-fiasco"

2017-01-12 Thread m.ostapenko at samsung dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061 Maxim Ostapenko changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m.ostapenko at samsung dot com ---

[Bug lto/79061] [7 Regression][LTO][ASAN] LTO plus ASAN fails with "AddressSanitizer: initialization-order-fiasco"

2017-01-12 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061 --- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2) > Is this after the fix for PR79042? I am nearly certain that it was after that fix. Before, I got an UBSAN overflow but only when combining OpenMP, LTO,

[Bug lto/79061] [7 Regression][LTO][ASAN] LTO plus ASAN fails with "AddressSanitizer: initialization-order-fiasco"

2017-01-12 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |7.0 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener

[Bug lto/79061] [7 Regression][LTO][ASAN] LTO plus ASAN fails with "AddressSanitizer: initialization-order-fiasco"

2017-01-11 Thread marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79061 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org