On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 21:48:23 -0400
Sasha Levin wrote:
> Steven,
>
>
> Since the only objection raised was the too-newiness of GCC 4.9.2/5.0, what
> would you consider a good time-line for removal?
>
> I haven't heard any "over my dead body" objections, so I guess that trying
> to remove it wh
On 03/11/2015 10:52 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> > Could you try KASan for your use case and see if it potentially uncovers
>> > anything new?
> The problem is, I don't have a setup to build with the latest compiler.
>
> I could build with my host compiler (that happens to be 4.9.2), but it
> woul
On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:43:29 -0400
Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 03/11/2015 10:26 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >> There's no real hurry to kill kmemcheck right now, but we do want to stop
> >> > supporting that in favour of KASan.
> > Understood, but the kernel is suppose to support older compilers.
> >
On 03/11/2015 03:39 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 03/11/2015 08:40 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 08:34:46 -0400
>> Sasha Levin wrote:
>>
Fair enough. We knew there are existing kmemcheck users, but KASan should
be
superior both in performance and the scope of bugs
From: Andrey Ryabinin
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 23:01:00 +0300
> 2015-03-11 21:44 GMT+03:00 David Miller :
>> From: Sasha Levin
>> Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 13:25:47 -0400
>>
>>> You're probably wondering why there are changes to SPARC in that patchset?
>>> :)
>>
>> Libsanitizer doesn't even build ha
2015-03-11 21:44 GMT+03:00 David Miller :
> From: Sasha Levin
> Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 13:25:47 -0400
>
>> You're probably wondering why there are changes to SPARC in that patchset? :)
>
> Libsanitizer doesn't even build have the time on sparc, the release
> manager has to hand patch it into build
From: Sasha Levin
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 13:25:47 -0400
> You're probably wondering why there are changes to SPARC in that patchset? :)
Libsanitizer doesn't even build have the time on sparc, the release
manager has to hand patch it into building again every major release
because of the way ASAN
On 03/11/2015 01:20 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Sasha Levin
> Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 09:39:33 -0400
>
>> > On 03/11/2015 08:40 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>> >> On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 08:34:46 -0400
>>> >> Sasha Levin wrote:
>>> >>
> >>> > Fair enough. We knew there are existing kmemcheck u
From: Sasha Levin
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 09:39:33 -0400
> On 03/11/2015 08:40 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 08:34:46 -0400
>> Sasha Levin wrote:
>>
>>> > Fair enough. We knew there are existing kmemcheck users, but KASan should
>>> > be
>>> > superior both in performance and
On 03/11/2015 10:26 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> There's no real hurry to kill kmemcheck right now, but we do want to stop
>> > supporting that in favour of KASan.
> Understood, but the kernel is suppose to support older compilers.
> Perhaps we can keep kmemcheck for now and say it's obsoleted if y
On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 09:39:33 -0400
Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 03/11/2015 08:40 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 08:34:46 -0400
> > Sasha Levin wrote:
> >
> >> > Fair enough. We knew there are existing kmemcheck users, but KASan
> >> > should be
> >> > superior both in performance
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 09:39:33AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 03/11/2015 08:40 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 08:34:46 -0400
> > Sasha Levin wrote:
> >
> >> > Fair enough. We knew there are existing kmemcheck users, but KASan
> >> > should be
> >> > superior both in
On 03/11/2015 08:40 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 08:34:46 -0400
> Sasha Levin wrote:
>
>> > Fair enough. We knew there are existing kmemcheck users, but KASan should
>> > be
>> > superior both in performance and the scope of bugs it finds. It also
>> > shouldn't
>> > impose n
On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 08:34:46 -0400
Sasha Levin wrote:
> Fair enough. We knew there are existing kmemcheck users, but KASan should be
> superior both in performance and the scope of bugs it finds. It also shouldn't
> impose new limitations beyond requiring gcc 4.9.2+.
>
Ouch! OK, then I can't use
On 03/11/2015 08:19 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> I removed the Cc list as it was so large, I'm sure that it exceeded the
> LKML Cc size limit, and your email probably didn't make it to the list
> (or any of them).
Thanks. I'll resend in a bit if it doesn't show up on lkml.org.
> On Wed, 11 Mar 201
15 matches
Mail list logo