Re: [HACKERS] LLVM Address Sanitizer (ASAN) and valgrind support

2016-10-23 Thread Noah Misch
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 06:14:28PM +0100, Greg Stark wrote: > On Oct 20, 2016 5:27 PM, "Noah Misch" wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:08:39AM +0100, Greg Stark wrote: > > > The MEMPOOL_FREE doesn't take any size argument and mcxt.c doesn't > > > have convenient access to a

Re: [HACKERS] LLVM Address Sanitizer (ASAN) and valgrind support

2016-10-20 Thread Greg Stark
On Oct 20, 2016 5:27 PM, "Noah Misch" wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:08:39AM +0100, Greg Stark wrote: > > > The MEMPOOL_FREE doesn't take any size argument and mcxt.c doesn't > > have convenient access to a size argument. It could call the > > GetChunkSpace method but

Re: [HACKERS] LLVM Address Sanitizer (ASAN) and valgrind support

2016-10-20 Thread Noah Misch
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:08:39AM +0100, Greg Stark wrote: > On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 4:52 AM, Noah Misch wrote: > > aset.c relies on the fact that VALGRIND_MEMPOOL_ALLOC() has an implicit > > VALGRIND_MAKE_MEM_UNDEFINED() and VALGRIND_MEMPOOL_FREE() has an implicit > >

Re: [HACKERS] LLVM Address Sanitizer (ASAN) and valgrind support

2016-10-19 Thread Greg Stark
On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 4:52 AM, Noah Misch wrote: > aset.c relies on the fact that VALGRIND_MEMPOOL_ALLOC() has an implicit > VALGRIND_MAKE_MEM_UNDEFINED() and VALGRIND_MEMPOOL_FREE() has an implicit > VALGRIND_MAKE_MEM_NOACCESS(). #define those two accordingly. If ASAN has

Re: [HACKERS] LLVM Address Sanitizer (ASAN) and valgrind support

2016-09-28 Thread Greg Stark
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 7:40 AM, Piotr Stefaniak wrote: > Not remembering the context, I was initially confused about what exactly > supposedly needs to be done in order to have ASan support, especially > since I've been using it for a couple of years without any kind

Re: [HACKERS] LLVM Address Sanitizer (ASAN) and valgrind support

2016-09-28 Thread Piotr Stefaniak
On 2016-09-28 00:02, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-09-07 17:05:10 +0100, Greg Stark wrote: >> I feel like I remember hearing about this before but I can't find any >> mention of it in my mail archives. It seems pretty simple to add >> support for LLVM's Address Sanitizer (asan) by using the hooks

Re: [HACKERS] LLVM Address Sanitizer (ASAN) and valgrind support

2016-09-27 Thread Andres Freund
On 2016-09-27 19:31:57 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On 2016-09-28 00:23:11 +0100, Greg Stark wrote: > >> I would love to remove all the #ifdef's and have the > >> macros just be no-ops if they're compiled out for example... > > > Don't we pretty much

Re: [HACKERS] LLVM Address Sanitizer (ASAN) and valgrind support

2016-09-27 Thread Tom Lane
Andres Freund writes: > On 2016-09-28 00:23:11 +0100, Greg Stark wrote: >> I would love to remove all the #ifdef's and have the >> macros just be no-ops if they're compiled out for example... > Don't we pretty much have that? I think "((void) 0)" is a more common spelling of

Re: [HACKERS] LLVM Address Sanitizer (ASAN) and valgrind support

2016-09-27 Thread Andres Freund
On 2016-09-28 00:23:11 +0100, Greg Stark wrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > Any plans to pick this up again? > > Yeah, I was just thinking I should pick this up again. > > > I vote for renaming the VALGRIND names etc. to something more

Re: [HACKERS] LLVM Address Sanitizer (ASAN) and valgrind support

2016-09-27 Thread Greg Stark
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > Any plans to pick this up again? Yeah, I was just thinking I should pick this up again. > I vote for renaming the VALGRIND names etc. to something more tool-neutral. I > think it's going to be too confusing otherwise.

Re: [HACKERS] LLVM Address Sanitizer (ASAN) and valgrind support

2016-09-27 Thread Andres Freund
Hi, On 2015-09-07 17:05:10 +0100, Greg Stark wrote: > I feel like I remember hearing about this before but I can't find any > mention of it in my mail archives. It seems pretty simple to add > support for LLVM's Address Sanitizer (asan) by using the hooks we > already have for valgrind. Any

Re: [HACKERS] LLVM Address Sanitizer (ASAN) and valgrind support

2016-02-05 Thread Noah Misch
On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 05:05:10PM +0100, Greg Stark wrote: > I feel like I remember hearing about this before but I can't find any > mention of it in my mail archives. It seems pretty simple to add > support for LLVM's Address Sanitizer (asan) by using the hooks we > already have for valgrind.

[HACKERS] LLVM Address Sanitizer (ASAN) and valgrind support

2015-09-07 Thread Greg Stark
I feel like I remember hearing about this before but I can't find any mention of it in my mail archives. It seems pretty simple to add support for LLVM's Address Sanitizer (asan) by using the hooks we already have for valgrind. In fact I think this would actually be sufficient. I'm not sure what