This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: glibc 2.25 seems to have broken AddressSaniitzer Inbox x glibc x sanitizer x
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
> LLVM has the sufficient tests, which is how we've learned about the problem.
> Do glibc developers run LLVM tests?
> If not, is it possible to change this?
I think the tests really need to be run by people familiar with LLVM
development, who can keep the build infrastructure up to date and filter
out issues relating to LLVM instability and only raise things that are
related to glibc. LLVM is much more aggressive than GCC about requiring
recent versions of build tools, so there's significant effort involved in
keeping LLVM builds going on a stable operating system version (possibly
with host compilers, host libc, Sphinx etc. a few years old).
As is, we don't even have all the existing glibc buildbots properly
maintained. If you look at
<http://glibc-buildbot.reserved-bit.com/waterfall> you'll see the i686 and
x86_64 bots have been failing configure for a long time because they are
running on Ubuntu 14.04 whose GCC and binutils versions are now too old
for building glibc. So it's very much for people who want new tests X to
be run to set up and keep maintaining the infrastructure to run tests X
and to report the issues found by tests X, rather than suggesting tests X
and hoping that existing developers will maintain that infrastructure for
If people wish to contribute to glibc by running tests - which is
certainly a very useful contribution to make, given the limited resources
in that area at present - it's useful to have different people running a
wide variety of tests continuously with current glibc and other tools and
reporting issues found - everything up to and including continuous
rebuilds of complete GNU/Linux distributions on sufficiently large build
Joseph S. Myers