Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
It's worth mentioning that I use std:atomic<struct> where struct has a single
64 bit member, possibly it's this that's tripping things up?
Original comment by dan.el...@gmail.com
on 8 Nov 2012 at 2:00
Original comment by konstant...@gmail.com
on 9 Nov 2012 at 11:22
Sorry, for some reason I wasn't subscribed to this group...
You need this revision:
http://www.llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=rev&revision=167611
Original comment by dvyu...@google.com
on 10 Nov 2012 at 10:20
>I'm eager to continue trying tsan against this codebase, which utilizes a lot
of tricky synchronization and lock-free algorithms.
Unfortunately ThreadSanitizer does not fully support *tricky* algorithms. It's
main goal is to be able to function on real programs, that may consist of
millions of lines of code, consume GBs of memory and run for hours.
100% precise memory model modeling is practically impossible on such scale. Not
saying that verification of tricky algorithms require examination of zillions
of possible executions. But we are trying to model some aspects, if it does not
sacrifice other properties. I've taught ThreadSanitizer about acuire-release
synchronization, basic understanding of release sequences, etc. But AFAIR
stand-alone memory fences are still no-ops. Having said that, we are able to
verify huge real programs w/o any problems (they rely mostly on acquire-release
synchronization).
It would be interesting to hear about your experience. Whether you observe any
false positives and on what code.
Original comment by dvyu...@google.com
on 10 Nov 2012 at 10:32
Adding Project:ThreadSanitizer as part of GitHub migration.
Original comment by gli...@google.com
on 30 Jul 2015 at 9:21
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
dan.el...@gmail.com
on 8 Nov 2012 at 2:06