libasan.so missing

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

libasan.so missing

Wolfgang Grandegger
Hello,

I'm using the x86_64 buildroot toolchain with gcc 5.4. I wonder why the
address sanitizer library "libasan.so*" is not available in the rootfs
of the target. Is it intentional? And what is the best way to get it
added to the rootfs?

Wolfgang.
_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: libasan.so missing

Jan Kundrát
On středa 14. června 2017 9:14:46 CEST, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> I'm using the x86_64 buildroot toolchain with gcc 5.4. I wonder
> why the address sanitizer library "libasan.so*" is not available
> in the rootfs of the target. Is it intentional? And what is the
> best way to get it added to the rootfs?

I was hitting the same problem but with GCC 6.3. I "kinda solved it" by
simply copying the files around; I'm afraid I don't want to dive into GCC's
makefiles to see why these are getting skipped.

Cheers,
Jan
_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: libasan.so missing

Wolfgang Grandegger
Hello Jan,

Am 16.06.2017 um 14:14 schrieb Jan Kundrát:
> On středa 14. června 2017 9:14:46 CEST, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>> I'm using the x86_64 buildroot toolchain with gcc 5.4. I wonder why
>> the address sanitizer library "libasan.so*" is not available in the
>> rootfs of the target. Is it intentional? And what is the best way to
>> get it added to the rootfs?
>
> I was hitting the same problem but with GCC 6.3. I "kinda solved it" by
> simply copying the files around; I'm afraid I don't want to dive into
> GCC's makefiles to see why these are getting skipped.

Yes, copying the library to the target directory in a board-specific
script is an option (the wrong rpath should not harm). I just wonder why
it's not available, at least in the staging tree. Maybe somebody can
explain why?

Wolfgang.
_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot
Loading...