Re: gcc 5.3 version of libasan is broken

[christos%astron.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

In article <20160607162041.B4E3817FDAB%rebar.astron.com@localhost>,
Christos Zoulas <christos%zoulas.com@localhost> wrote:
>On Jun 8,  1:03am, rokuyama%rk.phys.keio.ac.jp@localhost (Rin Okuyama) wrote:
>-- Subject: Re: gcc 5.3 version of libasan is broken
>
>| On 2016/06/07 23:42, Christos Zoulas wrote:
>| > I think it is better to do what linux does and write an internal_syscall()
>| > macro that just DTRT's instead of special-casing each syscall.
>| 
>| Sorry, I cannot grasp what you mean. Let me explain more in details what I
>| did. First, I defined three macros:
>
>I am trying to avoid having all these ifdefs in the common code, so that
>the upstream has a better chance to accept them. My idea was to do something
>like it is done in sanitizer_syscall_linux_x86_64.inc (but differently)
>In our case I think we could provide a varyadic macro that switched on
>the syscall number and DTRT...
>
>static inline uptr netbsd_lseek(int fd, OFF_T offset, int whence) {
>	return internal_syscall64(SYS_lseek, fd, 0, offset, whence);
>}
>
>#define internal_syscall(sys...) \
>	switch (sys) { \
>	case SYS_fork: \
>		return syscall(sys); \
>	case SYS_lseek: \
>		return netbsd_lseek(__VA_ARGS__); \
>
>This could all go in a separate header for NetBSD.  Alternatively,
>we just provide a separate header for all the syscall interception
>function that is NetBSD-specific, instead of sprinkling ifdefs in
>the common code (sanitizer_syscall_netbsd.inc).

Or perhaps what you have is better... I think that the file is full
of messy ifdefs, and a couple of more won't hurt. It would be better
if someone refactored it. I'll commit your changes for now.

christos