https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85434
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85434
Khalid Gomaa changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||khalid.a.gomaa at gmail dot com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85434
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||robotux at celest dot fr
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85434
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85434
--- Comment #21 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Thu Nov 22 14:46:17 2018
New Revision: 266379
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266379=gcc=rev
Log:
PR85434: Prevent spilling of stack protector guard's address on ARM
In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85434
--- Comment #20 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #19)
> Created attachment 44489 [details]
> Source file causing ICE on aarch64
>
> With your patch, GCC crashes with target aarch64-none-linux-gnu
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85434
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85434
--- Comment #18 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Author: thopre01
Date: Thu Aug 2 09:07:17 2018
New Revision: 263245
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=263245=gcc=rev
Log:
[ARM] Fix PR85434: spilling of stack protector guard's address on ARM
In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85434
--- Comment #17 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Patch has been posted for review:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-07/msg00246.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85434
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
Alias||CVE-2018-12886
--- Comment #16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85434
--- Comment #15 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #14)
> (In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #13)
> > Remains now:
> >
> > 1) add support for PIC access to the guard
> > 2) finish cleanup of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85434
--- Comment #14 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #13)
> Remains now:
>
> 1) add support for PIC access to the guard
> 2) finish cleanup of the patch
Except for a few missing comments, it's all there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85434
--- Comment #13 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Remains now:
1) add support for PIC access to the guard
2) finish cleanup of the patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85434
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #11)
> I've started to work on a new patch according to review feedbacks. I've
> reached the stage where I can compile without -fPIC with the stack protect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85434
--- Comment #11 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
I've started to work on a new patch according to review feedbacks. I've reached
the stage where I can compile without -fPIC with the stack protect test being
an UNSPEC split after register allocation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85434
Maxim Kuvyrkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85434
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
Managed to reach a state where nothing is spilled on the stack for Thumb-1
either. I want to do 3 more changes before I start full testing:
- put some compiler barrier between address computation and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85434
--- Comment #8 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #7)
> (In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #6)
> > (In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #3)
> > >
> > > My feeling is that the target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85434
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #6)
> (In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #3)
> >
> > My feeling is that the target patterns should also do the address
> > computation, ie
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85434
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #3)
>
> My feeling is that the target patterns should also do the address
> computation, ie stack_protect_set and stack_protect_test would take that MEM
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85434
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #4)
> Clearly rematerialization isn't working correctly. Immediates and constant
> addresses like this should never be spilled (using MOV/MOVK could increase
> codesize,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85434
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85434
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #2)
> (In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #1)
> > This is caused by missing stack_protect_set and stack_protect_test pattern
> > in ARM backend. It
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85434
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Preud'homme ---
(In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #1)
> This is caused by missing stack_protect_set and stack_protect_test pattern
> in ARM backend. It would be nice though if the address could be marked
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85434
Thomas Preud'homme changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
25 matches
Mail list logo
