Skip to content

fuchsia: Add safestack as a supported sanitizer for x86_64 fuchsia - #159873

Open
PiJoules wants to merge 1 commit into
rust-lang:mainfrom
PiJoules:fuchsia-safestack
Open

fuchsia: Add safestack as a supported sanitizer for x86_64 fuchsia#159873
PiJoules wants to merge 1 commit into
rust-lang:mainfrom
PiJoules:fuchsia-safestack

Conversation

@PiJoules

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Make it also enabled by default just like it is for clang.

Make it also enabled by default just like it is for clang.
@rustbot

rustbot commented Jul 24, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

These commits modify compiler targets.
(See the Target Tier Policy.)

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Jul 24, 2026
@rustbot

rustbot commented Jul 24, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

r? @adwinwhite

rustbot has assigned @adwinwhite.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

Why was this reviewer chosen?

The reviewer was selected based on:

  • Owners of files modified in this PR: compiler
  • compiler expanded to 74 candidates
  • Random selection from 18 candidates

@PiJoules

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

r? @erickt

@rustbot

rustbot commented Jul 24, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Failed to set assignee to erickt: invalid assignee

Note: Only org members with at least the repository "read" role, users with write permissions, or people who have commented on the PR may be assigned.

@rust-log-analyzer

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

The job aarch64-gnu-llvm-21-1 failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain enhanced) (plain)

Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot)
------FileCheck stderr------------------------------
/checkout/tests/assembly-llvm/stack-protector/stack-protector-target-support.rs:272:10: error: r77: expected string not found in input
 // r77: __stack_chk_fail
         ^
/checkout/obj/build/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/test/assembly-llvm/stack-protector/stack-protector-target-support.r77/stack-protector-target-support.s:2:20: note: scanning from here
 .section .text.foo,"ax",@progbits
                   ^
/checkout/obj/build/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/test/assembly-llvm/stack-protector/stack-protector-target-support.r77/stack-protector-target-support.s:14:20: note: possible intended match here
 .section ".note.GNU-stack","",@progbits
                   ^

Input file: /checkout/obj/build/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/test/assembly-llvm/stack-protector/stack-protector-target-support.r77/stack-protector-target-support.s
Check file: /checkout/tests/assembly-llvm/stack-protector/stack-protector-target-support.rs

-dump-input=help explains the following input dump.

Input was:
<<<<<<
             1:  .file "stack_protector_target_support.288192ff6b7189e6-cgu.0" 
             2:  .section .text.foo,"ax",@progbits 
check:272'0                        X~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ error: no match found
             3:  .globl foo 
check:272'0     ~~~~~~~~~~~~
             4:  .p2align 4 
check:272'0     ~~~~~~~~~~~~
             5:  .type foo,@function 
check:272'0     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             6: foo: 
check:272'0     ~~~~~
             7:  .cfi_startproc 
check:272'0     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             8:  retq 
check:272'0     ~~~~~~
             9: .Lfunc_end0: 
check:272'0     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
            10:  .size foo, .Lfunc_end0-foo 
check:272'0     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
            11:  .cfi_endproc 
check:272'0     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
            12:  
check:272'0     ~
            13:  .ident "rustc version 1.99.0-nightly (0ec8cbf5b 2026-07-24)" 
check:272'0     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
            14:  .section ".note.GNU-stack","",@progbits 
check:272'0     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
check:272'1                        ?                      possible intended match
>>>>>>

------------------------------------------

error in revision `r77`: verification with 'FileCheck' failed
status: exit status: 1
command: "/usr/lib/llvm-21/bin/FileCheck" "--input-file" "/checkout/obj/build/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/test/assembly-llvm/stack-protector/stack-protector-target-support.r77/stack-protector-target-support.s" "/checkout/tests/assembly-llvm/stack-protector/stack-protector-target-support.rs" "--check-prefix=CHECK" "--check-prefix" "r77" "--allow-unused-prefixes" "--dump-input-context" "100"
stdout: none
--- stderr -------------------------------
/checkout/tests/assembly-llvm/stack-protector/stack-protector-target-support.rs:272:10: error: r77: expected string not found in input
 // r77: __stack_chk_fail
         ^
/checkout/obj/build/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/test/assembly-llvm/stack-protector/stack-protector-target-support.r77/stack-protector-target-support.s:2:20: note: scanning from here
 .section .text.foo,"ax",@progbits
                   ^
/checkout/obj/build/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/test/assembly-llvm/stack-protector/stack-protector-target-support.r77/stack-protector-target-support.s:14:20: note: possible intended match here
 .section ".note.GNU-stack","",@progbits
                   ^

Input file: /checkout/obj/build/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/test/assembly-llvm/stack-protector/stack-protector-target-support.r77/stack-protector-target-support.s
Check file: /checkout/tests/assembly-llvm/stack-protector/stack-protector-target-support.rs

-dump-input=help explains the following input dump.

Input was:
<<<<<<
             1:  .file "stack_protector_target_support.288192ff6b7189e6-cgu.0" 
             2:  .section .text.foo,"ax",@progbits 
check:272'0                        X~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ error: no match found
             3:  .globl foo 
check:272'0     ~~~~~~~~~~~~
             4:  .p2align 4 
check:272'0     ~~~~~~~~~~~~
             5:  .type foo,@function 
check:272'0     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             6: foo: 
check:272'0     ~~~~~
             7:  .cfi_startproc 
check:272'0     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             8:  retq 
check:272'0     ~~~~~~
             9: .Lfunc_end0: 
check:272'0     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
            10:  .size foo, .Lfunc_end0-foo 
check:272'0     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
            11:  .cfi_endproc 
check:272'0     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
            12:  
check:272'0     ~
            13:  .ident "rustc version 1.99.0-nightly (0ec8cbf5b 2026-07-24)" 
check:272'0     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
            14:  .section ".note.GNU-stack","",@progbits 
check:272'0     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
check:272'1                        ?                      possible intended match
>>>>>>
------------------------------------------

---- [assembly] tests/assembly-llvm/stack-protector/stack-protector-target-support.rs#r77 stdout end ----

failures:
    [assembly] tests/assembly-llvm/stack-protector/stack-protector-target-support.rs#r77

test result: FAILED. 620 passed; 1 failed; 110 ignored; 0 measured; 0 filtered out; finished in 16.79s

@workingjubilee

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

huh. that's weird.

@adwinwhite

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@rustbot author

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Aug 13, 2026
@rustbot

rustbot commented Aug 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Reminder, once the PR becomes ready for a review, use @rustbot ready.

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. label Aug 13, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants