[Bug sanitizer/94910] detect_stack_use_after_return=1 is much slower than clang's

2020-06-12 Thread marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94910 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug sanitizer/94910] detect_stack_use_after_return=1 is much slower than clang's

2020-06-12 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94910 --- Comment #15 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Martin Liska : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5d746191e271949e530d9e5f46cde7e7bf08272f commit r8-10307-g5d746191e271949e530d9e5f46cde7e7bf08272f Author: Martin Liska

[Bug sanitizer/94910] detect_stack_use_after_return=1 is much slower than clang's

2020-06-12 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94910 --- Comment #14 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Martin Liska : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:877d8d63228579bd56f94e6c56fbfeb015da08e5 commit r9-8671-g877d8d63228579bd56f94e6c56fbfeb015da08e5 Author: Martin Liska

[Bug sanitizer/94910] detect_stack_use_after_return=1 is much slower than clang's

2020-06-12 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94910 --- Comment #13 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Martin Liska : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:036b288ca4cf5d3b1d908ef97c25b7f92153ff8a commit r10-8283-g036b288ca4cf5d3b1d908ef97c25b7f92153ff8a Author: Martin Liska

[Bug sanitizer/94910] detect_stack_use_after_return=1 is much slower than clang's

2020-06-10 Thread marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94910 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||11.0 Known to fail|

[Bug sanitizer/94910] detect_stack_use_after_return=1 is much slower than clang's

2020-06-10 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94910 --- Comment #11 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8b6731e674c76cb48a417f2eef74ced92a17f469 commit r11-1145-g8b6731e674c76cb48a417f2eef74ced92a17f469 Author: Martin Liska Date:

[Bug sanitizer/94910] detect_stack_use_after_return=1 is much slower than clang's

2020-05-25 Thread marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94910 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added CC||frantisek at sumsal dot cz --- Comment

[Bug sanitizer/94910] detect_stack_use_after_return=1 is much slower than clang's

2020-05-20 Thread marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94910 --- Comment #9 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Rafael Avila de Espindola from comment #8) > I can confirm that the proposed patch fixes the issue for me. > > Thank you so much! I thank you for the bug report. We had the regression since the

[Bug sanitizer/94910] detect_stack_use_after_return=1 is much slower than clang's

2020-05-19 Thread rafael at espindo dot la
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94910 --- Comment #8 from Rafael Avila de Espindola --- I can confirm that the proposed patch fixes the issue for me. Thank you so much!

[Bug sanitizer/94910] detect_stack_use_after_return=1 is much slower than clang's

2020-05-19 Thread marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94910 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug sanitizer/94910] detect_stack_use_after_return=1 is much slower than clang's

2020-05-18 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94910 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5) > > FakeStack (stack_size_log=20):bail out after 8192 > > FakeStack (stack_size_log=20):bail out after 16384 > > FakeStack (stack_size_log=20):bail out after 4096 >

[Bug sanitizer/94910] detect_stack_use_after_return=1 is much slower than clang's

2020-05-18 Thread marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94910 --- Comment #5 from Martin Liška --- > FakeStack (stack_size_log=20):bail out after 8192 > FakeStack (stack_size_log=20):bail out after 16384 > FakeStack (stack_size_log=20):bail out after 4096 > FakeStack (stack_size_log=20):bail out after 8192

[Bug sanitizer/94910] detect_stack_use_after_return=1 is much slower than clang's

2020-05-18 Thread marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94910 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW --- Comment #4 from Martin Liška

[Bug sanitizer/94910] detect_stack_use_after_return=1 is much slower than clang's

2020-05-15 Thread rafael at espindo dot la
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94910 --- Comment #3 from Rafael Avila de Espindola --- Yes, our build bots use podman, so you can reproduce with: $ git clone https://github.com/scylladb/seastar $ cd seastar $ podman run -v $PWD:$PWD:z -w $PWD -it

[Bug sanitizer/94910] detect_stack_use_after_return=1 is much slower than clang's

2020-05-15 Thread marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94910 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING --- Comment #2 from Martin Liška

[Bug sanitizer/94910] detect_stack_use_after_return=1 is much slower than clang's

2020-05-03 Thread marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94910 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED