On 10/15/20 7:45 PM, enh wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 5:21 PM Rob Landley <r...@landley.net> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/14/20 3:21 PM, enh wrote:
>>> i've sent a new fix that just touches dirtree_path() so that it always
>>> honors the size request again.
>>
>> Applied, and then cosmetically fiddled with because I do that.
>>
>>>> but I leave for the airport to fly back to Japan in 2 hours. (Part of the
>>>> reason I've been so distracted lately, it's not JUST focusing on sh.c. :)
>>>>
>>>>> Caught by ASan.
>>>>
>>>> Operating on what path?
>>>
>>> the new patch's commit message makes it clearer that you can reproduce
>>> this with the existing tar tests, as long as you `export ASAN=1`.
>>> (would we need extra docker dependencies, or should we just turn that
>>> on for the github CI?)
>>
>> No idea.
>
> yeah, i was hoping our github CI expert would chime in :-)
>
>> I mentioned the ndk not working for this becuase of the need to build
>> --static
>> to run anything on a system that doesn't have bionic installed in /lib, and
>> asan
>> not working --static.
>>
>> I can install llvm 7 through the devuan apt-get (may 2019), but 11 just
>> shipped
>> and they don't have debian binaries, just ubuntu. MIGHT work? Not looking
>> forward to trying to build that from source, it's really brittle last I
>> checked... Ah, maybe I can follow:
>>
>> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/general/llvm.html
>>
>> Um... is ninja part of cmake now? It lists cmake as a dependency but does not
>> list ninja? Did they add ninja to the 10.x base?
>>
>> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/stable/chapter08/ninja.html
>>
>> yes they did. Lovely...
>>
>> Anyway, question: is llvm 7 likely to be enough, or should I try compiling
>> llvm
>> from source to poke at this asan stuff?
>
> debian testing seems to have llvm 9 atm, and that's what i used, but,
> yes, asan's been stable for a while now so i'd expect 7 should be
> fine.
"After this operation, 562 MB of additional disk space will be used." Sigh. On
aboriginal linux I had a gcc install in 14 megs and 11 of that was /usr/include.
Why did they choose to write this in c++ again?
So I installed llvm-7 and afterwards did not have either a "clang" or an "llvm"
in the $PATH. So I installed clang-7 and still don't. I think I'm washing my
hands of debian's packaging of llvm because it DOESN'T WORK. (I now very vaguely
recall trying this before and uninstalling it again for this reason.)
I need to poke at LFS 10 anyway. I've mostly got mkroot back together and
booting again with toysh. Still need function() support and to finish
implementing the "source" command, and get the tests passing and turn shtest.txt
into more tests, but it's almost ready to start throwing real stuff at? What do
I need...
Nope, do_math() is still a stub so no $(( )) yet. And I should probably do [[ ]]
because some build script is likely to use that. And that TODO about \escapes in
backquotes is probably gonna bite. (Yeah I still need to do array variable
support but I can wait for something to break needing it, same for shopt
nocasematch and so on.) Signal handling at least needs to be stubbed in so
"trap" isn't an unknown command, but them I've got a chunk of job control
pluming implemented already. I don't strictly need to do command line editing
and history before trying to build LFS with it but you REALLY notice it's
missing using it interactively...
But... huh. It just went over 3500 lines and I'm sad about that, and yet it's
actually most of the way there? Ish? Sort of? Not THIS release, and plenty of
polishing stuff still to do, plus the PILE of bugs any real load is bound to
squeeze out...
Rob
_______________________________________________
Toybox mailing list
Toybox@lists.landley.net
http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
