This is an archive of the discontinued LLVM Phabricator instance.

Differential D44645

[test] Fix Cross-DSO CFI Android sanitizer test for -rtlib=compiler-rt
AbandonedPublic

Authored by mgorny on Mar 19 2018, 1:00 PM.

Details

Reviewers
eugenis
Summary

Fix the CHECK-CFI-CROSS-DSO-ANDROID test to be more precise and match
specifically 'clang_rt.cfi' rather than any compiler-rt library. This
fixes the failure when the linker command-line contains
clang_rt.builtins library due to CLANG_DEFAULT_RTLIB=compiler-rt.

Diff Detail

Event Timeline

mgorny created this revision.Mar 19 2018, 1:00 PM
Herald added subscribers: dberris, srhines. · View Herald TranscriptMar 19 2018, 1:00 PM
mgorny added inline comments.Mar 19 2018, 1:01 PM
test/Driver/sanitizer-ld.c
517

(an alternative would be to replace this 'NOT' clause with more specific library name — but I don't know which library could 'accidentally' appear here)

eugenis added inline comments.Mar 19 2018, 3:59 PM
test/Driver/sanitizer-ld.c
517

Yes, it would be better to check for -NOT: libclang_rt.cfi

mgorny updated this revision to Diff 139135.Mar 20 2018, 8:54 AM
mgorny edited the summary of this revision. (Show Details)
mgorny marked 2 inline comments as done.

@eugenis, updated.

eugenis added a comment.Mar 21 2018, 1:59 PM

This was fixed in https://reviews.llvm.org/D44655

mgorny abandoned this revision.Mar 29 2018, 12:20 AM

Revision Contents

PathSize
test/
Driver/
2 lines

Diff 139135

test/Driver/sanitizer-ld.c

Show First 20 Lines • Show All 508 Lines • ▼ Show 20 Lines
// CHECK-CFI-CROSS-DSO-DIAG-LINUX: -export-dynamic // CHECK-CFI-CROSS-DSO-DIAG-LINUX: -export-dynamic
// Cross-DSO CFI on Android does not link runtime libraries. // Cross-DSO CFI on Android does not link runtime libraries.
// RUN: %clang -fsanitize=cfi -fsanitize-cfi-cross-dso %s -### -o %t.o 2>&1 \ // RUN: %clang -fsanitize=cfi -fsanitize-cfi-cross-dso %s -### -o %t.o 2>&1 \
// RUN: -target aarch64-linux-android -fuse-ld=ld \ // RUN: -target aarch64-linux-android -fuse-ld=ld \
// RUN: --sysroot=%S/Inputs/basic_android_tree \ // RUN: --sysroot=%S/Inputs/basic_android_tree \
// RUN: | FileCheck --check-prefix=CHECK-CFI-CROSS-DSO-ANDROID %s // RUN: | FileCheck --check-prefix=CHECK-CFI-CROSS-DSO-ANDROID %s
// CHECK-CFI-CROSS-DSO-ANDROID: "{{.*}}ld{{(.exe)?}}" // CHECK-CFI-CROSS-DSO-ANDROID: "{{.*}}ld{{(.exe)?}}"
// CHECK-CFI-CROSS-DSO-ANDROID-NOT: libclang_rt. // CHECK-CFI-CROSS-DSO-ANDROID-NOT: libclang_rt.cfi
mgornyAuthorUnsubmitted
Done
ReplyInline Actions

(an alternative would be to replace this 'NOT' clause with more specific library name — but I don't know which library could 'accidentally' appear here)

mgorny: (an alternative would be to replace this 'NOT' clause with more specific library name — but I…
eugenisUnsubmitted
Done
ReplyInline Actions

Yes, it would be better to check for -NOT: libclang_rt.cfi

eugenis: Yes, it would be better to check for -NOT: libclang_rt.cfi
// Cross-DSO CFI with diagnostics on Android links just the UBSAN runtime. // Cross-DSO CFI with diagnostics on Android links just the UBSAN runtime.
// RUN: %clang -fsanitize=cfi -fsanitize-cfi-cross-dso %s -### -o %t.o 2>&1 \ // RUN: %clang -fsanitize=cfi -fsanitize-cfi-cross-dso %s -### -o %t.o 2>&1 \
// RUN: -fno-sanitize-trap=cfi -fsanitize-recover=cfi \ // RUN: -fno-sanitize-trap=cfi -fsanitize-recover=cfi \
// RUN: -target aarch64-linux-android -fuse-ld=ld \ // RUN: -target aarch64-linux-android -fuse-ld=ld \
// RUN: --sysroot=%S/Inputs/basic_android_tree \ // RUN: --sysroot=%S/Inputs/basic_android_tree \
// RUN: | FileCheck --check-prefix=CHECK-CFI-CROSS-DSO-DIAG-ANDROID %s // RUN: | FileCheck --check-prefix=CHECK-CFI-CROSS-DSO-DIAG-ANDROID %s
// CHECK-CFI-CROSS-DSO-DIAG-ANDROID: "{{.*}}ld{{(.exe)?}}" // CHECK-CFI-CROSS-DSO-DIAG-ANDROID: "{{.*}}ld{{(.exe)?}}"
▲ Show 20 Lines • Show All 224 Lines • Show Last 20 Lines