From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: building/using address-sanitizer-enabled emacs? Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 05:41:28 +0300 Message-ID: <83bmr1bfhj.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83wp9scbwi.fsf@gnu.org> <83shkfct06.fsf@gnu.org> <83fugfcp3b.fsf@gnu.org> <9089f9ef-5312-2d82-a671-b63269a3312b@cs.ucla.edu> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1494384215 10874 195.159.176.226 (10 May 2017 02:43:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 02:43:35 +0000 (UTC) Cc: eggert@cs.ucla.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Jim Meyering Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed May 10 04:43:32 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d8Hb9-0002kB-IB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 10 May 2017 04:43:31 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40154 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d8HbF-0001hv-1t for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 09 May 2017 22:43:37 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55922) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d8HZS-0000rk-MH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 May 2017 22:41:47 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d8HZP-0000Es-JX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 May 2017 22:41:46 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:50592) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d8HZP-0000Eo-Fq; Tue, 09 May 2017 22:41:43 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:4044 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1d8HZO-00078I-Gh; Tue, 09 May 2017 22:41:43 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Jim Meyering on Tue, 9 May 2017 15:49:34 -0700) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:214736 Archived-At: > From: Jim Meyering > Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 15:49:34 -0700 > Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel > > > My own impression from a while ago is that the address sanitizer was not > > suitable for the class Emacs undumping, since its shadow memory won't > > survive dump-restore correctly. It sort of worked in some cases but it > > didn't work in general. I suppose it may be possible to work around the > > various issues, but as I recall it'd be a lot of trouble. > > With the above, I thought I was avoiding the undumping issue by using temacs. Indeed, I believe the problem you reported is unrelated to unexec.