Is it possible that this broke this fuzzer?

This also seems to break our ASAN bootstrap bot: https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/168/builds/9838/steps/13/logs/stdio

This seems to have broken our buildbot: https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/74/builds/14667

In D135898#3897973, @fmayer wrote:

In D135898#3897954, @fmayer wrote:

This broke our build bots: https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/19/builds/13332/steps/25/logs/stdio

I'll submit a fix for this.

In D135898#3897954, @fmayer wrote:

This broke our build bots: https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/19/builds/13332/steps/25/logs/stdio

This broke our build bots: https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/19/builds/13332/steps/25/logs/stdio

This has broken our sanitizer buildbot: https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/5/builds/28427/steps/9/logs/stdio

In D115757#3866833, @ABataev wrote:

It was already reverted and then committed back with a fix.

This seems to have an MSAN error: https://lab.llvm.org/buildbot/#/builders/74/builds/14338/steps/13/logs/stdio

messed up rebase before

In D134969#3827883, @MaskRay wrote:

Phabricator doesn't work like other review systems where you use WANT_LGTM=all. There is usually no need to remove a reviewer except a few cases, e.g. a reviewer is apparently not involved in llvm-project for a long time, a reviewer removes themselves from the reviewer list.
Not for this case: sometimes removing a reviewer can be perceived negatively, e.g. whether the patch author wants to bypass someone's opinion.

In D128998#3826710, @mgorny wrote:

This change broke building with -DLIBUNWIND_ENABLE_CROSS_UNWINDING=ON:

format

comment

naming

comments

nit

In D133582#3784862, @fmayer wrote:

PTAL. I'd like to merge this earlier rather than later if possible, to avoid merge conflicts.

PTAL. I'd like to merge this earlier rather than later if possible, to avoid merge conflicts.

nit

In D132611#3781029, @enh wrote:

the same person also noticed that in the shadow map we dump shadow addresses rather than "real" addresses, which i'd never noticed because i just ignore that bit as being "for experts only". one day i might be brave enough to admit that i don't know whether i'm supposed to be using it, and if so, for what :-)

typo

preceding -> front, succeeding -> back

Another option (probably better, WDYT?): replace preceding/succeeding with front/back.

In D132611#3778826, @thakis wrote:

If you want to update this, please do it everywhere.

(I don't think it's clearer and it broke a bunch of our tests, so I'm a bit grumpy about this change. Apologies.)

In D133391#3775336, @eugenis wrote:

LGTM

Maybe add a few compile-time checks that mem->shadow->mem returns the original value? At least the sparc equations are complicated enough.

add static assert

In D132611#3760351, @phosek wrote:

This is fine from my perspective, if we want to be extra cautious it might be worth sending an announcement to Discourse before landing this change.

Ping

In D128998#3757020, @MaskRay wrote:

The clean part in the name and the clean parameter feels unclear to me.

And this.

In D128998#3723720, @fmayer wrote:

In D128998#3721563, @MaskRay wrote:

About __unw_clean_step:

libunwind/src/libunwind_ext.h provides a bunch of API which are not implemented by https://github.com/libunwind/libunwind .
Before we settle on an API there, it's worth raising an issue on https://github.com/libunwind/libunwind and giving them some time for the API design.

AFAICT my change does not in fact expose a new API, because it does not use _LIBUNWIND_WEAK_ALIAS, so __unw_clean_step will remain hidden visiblity.

update

https://github.com/google/clusterfuzz/blob/master/src/clusterfuzz/tests/test.py still passes if I change https://github.com/google/clusterfuzz/blob/master/src/clusterfuzz/tests/testdata/asan_stacktrace.txt to use the new format

fix tests

Need to fix tests, sorry, messed something up.