On 9 Mar 2015 at 23:16, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
I'm under the impression that some of the sanitisers may need to be taught about certain constructs in order to be effective (e.g. boost::detail::atomic_increment: http://www.boost.org/development/tests/develop/developer/output/BenPope%20x8...)
Other failures look legitimate at first glance (e.g. Cycle in lock order graph: http://www.boost.org/development/tests/develop/developer/output/BenPope%20x8...)
Thanks for this report.
I shall endeavour to get nicer stack traces, I think I need to tell it about llvm-symbolizer, althouh I haven't always had success in the past, any advice or suggestions are welcome.
yes, this will be even better.
AFIO uses the following tsan suppressions for libstdc++ and Boost:
# Stuff from libstdc++ not understood by tsan
race:include/c++/*/bits/shared_ptr_base.h
race:std::_Sp_counted_base<(__gnu_cxx::_Lock_policy)2>::_M_add_ref_loc
k()
race:std::string::_Rep::_M_refdata()
# Stuff from Boost not understood by tsan
race:boost/exception/detail/exception_ptr.hpp
race:boost/exception/exception.hpp
race:void std::swap