We've talked about this many times in the past, but partners struggle to
understand "expected 38, got 22" in these contexts, and I always have to
go and check the header files just to be sure I'm sure.
I actually think the glibc geterrorname_np() function (which would
return "ENOSYS" rather than "Function not implemented") would be more
helpful, but I'll have to go and implement that first, and then come
back.
Being forced to go through all our errno assertions did also make me
want to use a more consistent style for our ENOSYS assertions in
particular --- there's a particularly readable idiom, and I'll also come
back and move more of those checks to the most readable idiom.
I've added a few missing `errno = 0`s before tests, and removed a few
stray `errno = 0`s from tests that don't actually make assertions about
errno, since I had to look at every single reference to errno anyway.
Test: treehugger
Change-Id: Iba7c56f2adc30288c3e00ade106635e515e88179
* HWASan report invalid use of the allocator api (like alignment not
being power of two, or allocation size too large) in a way tests do not
expect.
* Code in .preinit_array runs before HWASan shadow is initialized and
needs to be excluded from instrumentation.
* It looks that mm system calls (mmap/mprotect/etc) will not allow
tagged pointers. In fact, the use of mprotect on malloc()ed memory is
doubtful - one can imagine some kind of speculative load from such
memory, as compiler knows that it is addressable.
Bug: 114279110
Test: bionic-unit-tests with hwasan
Change-Id: I6ba4b46a0d554de77c923ad134cf156ce4ddba1b
MIPS and x86 appear to have been correct already.
(Also fix unit tests that ASSERT_EQ with errno so that the
arguments are in the retarded junit order.)
Bug: 3461078
Change-Id: I2418ea98927b56e15b4ba9cfec97f5e7094c6291
