Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[sanitizer_common][test] Always skip select allocator tests on SPARC V9 #100530

Conversation

rorth
Copy link
Collaborator

@rorth rorth commented Jul 25, 2024

Two allocator tests FAIL on Linux/sparc64:

  SanitizerCommon-Unit :: ./Sanitizer-sparcv9-Test/SanitizerCommon/CombinedAllocator32Compact
  SanitizerCommon-Unit :: ./Sanitizer-sparcv9-Test/SanitizerCommon/SizeClassAllocator32Iteration

The failure mode is the same on Solaris/sparcv9, where those tests are already disabled since 0f69cbe. Therefore, this patch skips them on SPARC in general.

Tested on sparc64-unknown-linux-gnu and sparcv9-sun-solaris2.11.

Two allocator tests `FAIL` on Linux/sparc64:
```
  SanitizerCommon-Unit :: ./Sanitizer-sparcv9-Test/SanitizerCommon/CombinedAllocator32Compact
  SanitizerCommon-Unit :: ./Sanitizer-sparcv9-Test/SanitizerCommon/SizeClassAllocator32Iteration

```
The failure mode is the same on Solaris/sparcv9, where those tests are
already disabled since 0f69cbe.
Therefore, this patch skips them on SPARC in general.

Tested on `sparc64-unknown-linux-gnu` and `sparcv9-sun-solaris2.11`.
@llvmbot
Copy link
Member

llvmbot commented Jul 25, 2024

@llvm/pr-subscribers-compiler-rt-sanitizer

Author: Rainer Orth (rorth)

Changes

Two allocator tests FAIL on Linux/sparc64:

  SanitizerCommon-Unit :: ./Sanitizer-sparcv9-Test/SanitizerCommon/CombinedAllocator32Compact
  SanitizerCommon-Unit :: ./Sanitizer-sparcv9-Test/SanitizerCommon/SizeClassAllocator32Iteration

The failure mode is the same on Solaris/sparcv9, where those tests are already disabled since 0f69cbe. Therefore, this patch skips them on SPARC in general.

Tested on sparc64-unknown-linux-gnu and sparcv9-sun-solaris2.11.


Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/100530.diff

1 Files Affected:

  • (modified) compiler-rt/lib/sanitizer_common/tests/sanitizer_allocator_test.cpp (+7-6)
diff --git a/compiler-rt/lib/sanitizer_common/tests/sanitizer_allocator_test.cpp b/compiler-rt/lib/sanitizer_common/tests/sanitizer_allocator_test.cpp
index 1a1ccce82d259..601897a64f051 100644
--- a/compiler-rt/lib/sanitizer_common/tests/sanitizer_allocator_test.cpp
+++ b/compiler-rt/lib/sanitizer_common/tests/sanitizer_allocator_test.cpp
@@ -28,12 +28,13 @@
 
 using namespace __sanitizer;
 
-#if SANITIZER_SOLARIS && defined(__sparcv9)
+#if defined(__sparcv9)
 // FIXME: These tests probably fail because Solaris/sparcv9 uses the full
-// 64-bit address space.  Needs more investigation
-#define SKIP_ON_SOLARIS_SPARCV9(x) DISABLED_##x
+// 64-bit address space.  Same on Linux/sparc64, so probably a general SPARC
+// issue.  Needs more investigation
+#  define SKIP_ON_SPARCV9(x) DISABLED_##x
 #else
-#define SKIP_ON_SOLARIS_SPARCV9(x) x
+#  define SKIP_ON_SPARCV9(x) x
 #endif
 
 // On 64-bit systems with small virtual address spaces (e.g. 39-bit) we can't
@@ -781,7 +782,7 @@ TEST(SanitizerCommon, CombinedAllocator64VeryCompact) {
 }
 #endif
 
-TEST(SanitizerCommon, SKIP_ON_SOLARIS_SPARCV9(CombinedAllocator32Compact)) {
+TEST(SanitizerCommon, SKIP_ON_SPARCV9(CombinedAllocator32Compact)) {
   TestCombinedAllocator<Allocator32Compact>();
 }
 
@@ -1028,7 +1029,7 @@ TEST(SanitizerCommon, SizeClassAllocator64DynamicPremappedIteration) {
 #endif
 #endif
 
-TEST(SanitizerCommon, SKIP_ON_SOLARIS_SPARCV9(SizeClassAllocator32Iteration)) {
+TEST(SanitizerCommon, SKIP_ON_SPARCV9(SizeClassAllocator32Iteration)) {
   TestSizeClassAllocatorIteration<Allocator32Compact>();
 }
 

@rorth rorth added this to the LLVM 19.X Release milestone Jul 29, 2024
@rorth rorth merged commit 3d14912 into llvm:main Jul 30, 2024
9 checks passed
@rorth
Copy link
Collaborator Author

rorth commented Jul 30, 2024

/cherry-pick 3d14912

llvmbot pushed a commit to llvmbot/llvm-project that referenced this pull request Jul 30, 2024
…V9 (llvm#100530)

Two allocator tests `FAIL` on Linux/sparc64:
```
  SanitizerCommon-Unit :: ./Sanitizer-sparcv9-Test/SanitizerCommon/CombinedAllocator32Compact
  SanitizerCommon-Unit :: ./Sanitizer-sparcv9-Test/SanitizerCommon/SizeClassAllocator32Iteration
```
The failure mode is the same on Solaris/sparcv9, where those tests are
already disabled since 0f69cbe.
Therefore, this patch skips them on SPARC in general.

Tested on `sparc64-unknown-linux-gnu` and `sparcv9-sun-solaris2.11`.

(cherry picked from commit 3d14912)
@llvmbot
Copy link
Member

llvmbot commented Jul 30, 2024

/pull-request #101135

tru pushed a commit to llvmbot/llvm-project that referenced this pull request Jul 30, 2024
…V9 (llvm#100530)

Two allocator tests `FAIL` on Linux/sparc64:
```
  SanitizerCommon-Unit :: ./Sanitizer-sparcv9-Test/SanitizerCommon/CombinedAllocator32Compact
  SanitizerCommon-Unit :: ./Sanitizer-sparcv9-Test/SanitizerCommon/SizeClassAllocator32Iteration
```
The failure mode is the same on Solaris/sparcv9, where those tests are
already disabled since 0f69cbe.
Therefore, this patch skips them on SPARC in general.

Tested on `sparc64-unknown-linux-gnu` and `sparcv9-sun-solaris2.11`.

(cherry picked from commit 3d14912)
banach-space pushed a commit to banach-space/llvm-project that referenced this pull request Aug 7, 2024
…V9 (llvm#100530)

Two allocator tests `FAIL` on Linux/sparc64:
```
  SanitizerCommon-Unit :: ./Sanitizer-sparcv9-Test/SanitizerCommon/CombinedAllocator32Compact
  SanitizerCommon-Unit :: ./Sanitizer-sparcv9-Test/SanitizerCommon/SizeClassAllocator32Iteration
```
The failure mode is the same on Solaris/sparcv9, where those tests are
already disabled since 0f69cbe.
Therefore, this patch skips them on SPARC in general.

Tested on `sparc64-unknown-linux-gnu` and `sparcv9-sun-solaris2.11`.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants