Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 8 years ago
The blacklist option in asan was more like a hack in absence of a proper
attribute.
Now we have one for asan (attribute no_address_safety_analysis).
Shall we use attribute no_thread_safety_analysis for tsan *instead* of
blacklist?
(I am not sure we can, just asking)
Original comment by konstant...@gmail.com
on 12 Mar 2012 at 4:24
We may implement the attribute. In gcc-tsan I had both the attribute and
ignoring of functions starting with __tsan_ at some point.
However for faster migration we still need ignore files. FWIW ignore files can
be used for read-only third_party code as well.
Original comment by dvyu...@google.com
on 12 Mar 2012 at 4:32
Do you think that the blacklist functionality from asan will be enough?
Original comment by konstant...@gmail.com
on 12 Mar 2012 at 4:36
What is the blacklist functionality from asan?
Original comment by dvyu...@google.com
on 12 Mar 2012 at 4:45
http://code.google.com/p/address-sanitizer/wiki/AddressSanitizer#Blacklist_file
Original comment by konstant...@gmail.com
on 12 Mar 2012 at 5:28
Restoring current ignore file functionality definitely will be enough.
Original comment by dvyu...@google.com
on 13 Mar 2012 at 7:59
llvm r152755 adds flag "-mllvm -tsan-blacklist=<file>"
which uses the same BlackList implementation as in asan, i.e. only supports
fun:FunctionNameWildcard
Now, what else do we need?
* obj: irrelevant, we are not instrumenting binaries
* src: probably relevant. Yes?
* fun_r: OMG. I hope we don't need it. Do we? Pleeease, say no.
* fun_hist: hope not.
Original comment by konstant...@gmail.com
on 14 Mar 2012 at 11:42
They are used in our projects. If we support them we are cool. Otherwise we
will need to do something with each ignore independently during deployment.
On Mar 15, 2012 3:43 AM, <data-race-test@googlecode.com> wrote:
Original comment by dvyu...@google.com
on 15 Mar 2012 at 4:36
They are used for reasons that may not exist with tsan v2.
Original comment by konstant...@gmail.com
on 15 Mar 2012 at 4:39
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
dvyu...@google.com
on 12 Mar 2012 at 12:55