Re: [boost] Test failures on sanitize memory - are they caused by lightweight_test?

Subject: Re: [boost] Test failures on sanitize memory - are they caused by lightweight_test?
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-03-13 03:09:58

Le 12/03/15 15:48, Ben Pope a écrit :
> On Thursday, March 12, 2015 10:45 PM, Ben Pope wrote:
>> -fsanitize-blacklist needs passing at compile time, not link time.
>
> ...which is entirely my fault.
>
I see a lot of reports that a similar to this one yet [1].

Uninitialized bytes in __interceptor_strlen at offset 88 inside [0x60c00000efa0, 89)
==7257== WARNING: MemorySanitizer: use-of-uninitialized-value
     #0 0x7f46edfb1de2 in std::logic_error::logic_error(std::__1::basic_string<char, std::__1::char_traits<char>, std::__1::allocator<char> > const&) (/usr/lib/libc++.so.1+0x8dde2)
     #1 0x7f46eeddaf64 in boost::future_error::future_error(boost::system::error_code) /home/ben/development/boost/test/build/boost_root/status/../boost/thread/futures/future_error.hpp:28:7
     #2 0x7f46eeddefc8 in boost::broken_promise::broken_promise() /home/ben/development/boost/test/build/boost_root/status/../boost/thread/futures/future_error.hpp:51:9
     #3 0x7f46eedcdb02 in boost::promise<int>::~promise() /home/ben/development/boost/test/build/boost_root/status/../boost/thread/future.hpp:1951:63
     #4 0x7f46eedc8120 in main /home/ben/development/boost/test/build/boost_root/status/../libs/thread/test/sync/futures/shared_future/move_assign_pass.cpp:39:3
     #5 0x7f46ecce0ec4 in __libc_start_main (/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6+0x21ec4)
     #6 0x7f46eed7374c in _start (/home/ben/development/boost/test/build/results/boost/bin.v2/libs/thread/test/shared_future__move_asign_p.test/clang-linux-3.6~msan~c14_libc++/debug/address-model-64/architecture-x86/threading-multi/shared_future__move_asign_p+0x6974c)

SUMMARY: MemorySanitizer: use-of-uninitialized-value ??:0 std::logic_error::logic_error(std::__1::basic_string<char, std::__1::char_traits<char>, std::__1::allocator<char> > const&)
Exiting

Does it corresponds to the same false positive?
Have you reached to mask the PO false positive?

Vicente

[1] 
http://www.boost.org/development/tests/develop/developer/output/BenPope%20x86_64%20Ubuntu-boost-bin-v2-libs-thread-test-shared_future__move_asign_p-test-clang-linux-3-6~msan~c14_libc++-debug-address-model-64-architecture-x86-threading-multi.html