Thanks Richard, I'll remove UNSPEC_SIN/COS from my patch.
Han
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 3:07 AM, Richard Earnshaw rearn...@arm.com wrote:
On 12/03/14 22:35, Hán Shěn (沈涵) wrote:
ARM build (on chrome) is broken because of duplicate entries in arm.md
and unspecs.md. Fixed by removing duplication
ARM build (on chrome) is broken because of duplicate entries in arm.md
and unspecs.md. Fixed by removing duplication and merge those in
arm.md into unspecs.md.
(We had a similar fix for google/gcc-4_8 here -
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revisionrevision=198650)
Tested by building arm
Hi current google/main fails to build for arm because of duplicated
head file entries in gtyp-input.list.
Fixed by removing duplication in macro tm_file. This only affects arm
platform. Tested by successfully build for arm.
Patch below
--- config.gcc.orig 2014-03-11 15:10:26.849602409
Hi Rong, while building for arm toolchain on chromeos, GCOV_LOCKED is
not defined, which leads to redefinition of cs_all, this is observed
on google/gcc-4_8 branch.
Patch below, tested on chromeos for arm and x86_64 arch.
Ok for google/gcc-4_8 branch?
diff --git a/libgcc/libgcov-driver.c
Hi, I'm to backport trunk patch @198547 for pr target/56732 to google
branch google/gcc-4_8.
This patch fixes arm ICE.
Ok for google/gcc-4_8?
[patch attached]
H.
r198547.patch
Description: Binary data
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/26/2013 10:45 AM, Han Shen(沈涵) wrote:
Hi, I'd like to ping the patch '-fstack-protector-strong':
- http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-04/msg00945.html
Add a new option '-fstack-protector-strong' to protect only
Updated patch according to Jeff Law's comments (
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-05/msg00038.html )
Thanks,
H.
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Han Shen(沈涵) shen...@google.com wrote:
Thanks.
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 2:26 AM, Florian Weimer fwei...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/17/2013 02:49
Backport trunk@198344 - another fix to PR rtl-optimization/56847 - to
google/gcc-4_8 branch.
The first fix was trunk@198101 -
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-04/msg01152.html - which was
backported to google/gcc-4_8 as gcc-4_8@198315
Unfortunately, it resulted in some libstdc++ test
Hi, I'd like to ping the patch '-fstack-protector-strong':
- http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-04/msg00945.html
Add a new option '-fstack-protector-strong' to protect only
stack-smashing-vulnerable functions.
Thanks,
H.
ARM build (on chrome) is broken. This patch fixed the problem. Tested
by building arm cross compiler successfully.
* gcc/config/config.cc: Removed duplicated header files which
causes error in generating gtyp-input.list.
* gcc/config/arm.md: Most of define_c_enum unspec
Hi, this patch back port trunk@198101 to fix PR rtl-optimization/56847.
Passed bootstrap and regression test.
Ok for branch google/gcc-4_8?
2013-04-19 Vladimir Makarov vmaka...@redhat.com
PR rtl-optimization/56847
* lra-constraints.c (process_alt_operands): Discourage
Thanks.
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 2:26 AM, Florian Weimer fwei...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/17/2013 02:49 AM, Han Shen wrote:
Indentation is off (unless both mail clients I tried are clobbering your
patch). I think the GNU coding style prohibits the braces around the
single-statement body of the
Hi, I'm to bring up this patch about '-fstack-protector-strong' for trunk.
Background - some times stack-protector is too-simple while
stack-protector-all over-kills, for example, to build one of our core
systems, we forcibly add -fstack-protector-all to all compile
commands, which brings big
Fix inconsistency between Makefile.am and Makefile.in under libstdc++.
The inconsistency was introduced by
svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/google/gcc-4_7@194664
Since the re-generated Makefile.in has not changed (thus not included
in the patch), this modification should have no impact.
Hi Ahmad and Dehao, gcc-4_7-mobile branch needs 196555 patch to fix
broken dependency when bootstrapping host compiler for chromeos.
Could you take a look, thanks!
-Han
Patch here
diff --git a/gcc/Makefile.in b/gcc/Makefile.in
index c180f31..82b 100644
--- a/gcc/Makefile.in
+++
The merge includes the following 108 CLs from 190426 (excluded) up to
195968 (included) -
195968 195906 195905 195810 195782 195740 195672 195468 195460 195435
195427 195373 195356 195306 195282 195246 195214 195030 194932 194931
194926 194925 194921 194874 194831 194739 194737 194735 194725
Hi Ahmad and Luis, I'd like you to do a code review.
Temporarily adds below failures to baseline. Needs to be removed after
a thorough analysis/fix.
Patch below -
--- /dev/null 2012-11-30 16:08:50.372341021 -0800
+++ contrib/testsuite-management/i686-pc-linux-gnu 2012-12-13
10:30:39.496677271
--
From: Han Shen(沈涵) shen...@google.com
Date: Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:09 PM
Subject: [PATCH] Add a new option -fstack-protector-strong (patch / doc
inside)
To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com, Jing Yu jin...@google.com, Kees
Cook keesc...@google.com, Ahmad
Hi, the google/gcc-main fails to linking anything (on x86-generic chromeos).
By looking into specs file, it seems that 'link_emulation' section is
missing in specs.
The problem is in config/i386/linux.h, SUBTARGET_EXTRA_SPECS (which is
not empty for chrome x86-generic) is overridden by
Hi, ping, could any one take a look at this patch? Thanks,
-Han
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Kees Cook keesc...@google.com wrote:
Hi,
I'm curious about the status of this patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-06/msg00974.html
Chrome OS uses this, and the Ubuntu Security Team
Hi Ahmad, I'd like you to do a code review, which backports the
following patch (r190600) from google/gcc-4_7.
2012-08-22 Han Shen shen...@google.com
Fixed the problem that LINUX_GRTE_EXTRA_SPECS overrides
SUBTARGET_EXTRA_SPECS by prepending LINUX_GRTE_EXTRA_SPECS to
Hi Jing, the crosstool test passed. You can start the review, thanks! -Han
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Han Shen(沈涵) shen...@google.com wrote:
Hi Jing, ping?
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Han Shen(沈涵) shen...@google.com wrote:
Hi, the google/gcc-4_7 fails to linking anything (on x86
Hi Jing, ping?
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Han Shen(沈涵) shen...@google.com wrote:
Hi, the google/gcc-4_7 fails to linking anything (on x86-generic), by
looking into specs file, it seems that 'link_emulation' section is
missing in specs.
The problem is in config/i386/linux.h
Hi, the google/gcc-4_7 fails to linking anything (on x86-generic), by
looking into specs file, it seems that 'link_emulation' section is
missing in specs.
The problem is in config/i386/linux.h, SUBTARGET_EXTRA_SPECS (which is
not empty for chrome x86-generic) is overridden by
Hi Carrot, could you take a look at this patch? Thanks!
The modification is in upstream trunk patch revision - 186859.
The same patch has been back ported to google/gcc-4_6
(http://codereview.appspot.com/6206055/), this is to apply on
google/gcc-4_7
Regards,
-Han
2012-08-13 Han Shen
Hi,
This is to port the patch from google/main to trunk, which provides a new stack
protection option - fstack-protector-strong.
Previous review for google trunk is here -
http://codereview.appspot.com/5461043
Status - it has been used in google/main for 2 quarters, building the whole
Hi, ok for approval?
Thanks,
-Han
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 4:49 PM, shen...@google.com wrote:
On 2012/05/16 23:30:28, Diego Novillo wrote:
On 12-05-16 19:22 , mailto:jin...@google.com wrote:
In my opinion, gcc/ChangeLog is for upstream commits only.
It is fine that you want to port
Hi Jing, thanks!
The SUBTARGET_EXTRA_SPECS is defined in config/i386/gnu-user.h
In linux.h, the original value of SUBTARGET_EXTRA_SPECS is
overwritten by LINUX_GRTE_EXTRA_SPECS, which is not right! Instead,
SUBTARGET_EXTRA_SPECS and LINUX_GRTE_EXTRA_SPECS must be
concatenated.
For every target,
Hi, ping?
Could someone take a look at this patch, it has already been reviewed
several rounds. I'm to submit it to gcc trunk.
Thanks,
-Han
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 9:41 PM, davi...@google.com wrote:
ok for google branches with the above changes. Please continue to seek
upstream approval.
Hi, David and Rong, thanks a lot! Modified code uploaded as patch 8
and is also included at the end of email body.
Ref - http://codereview.appspot.com/5461043
Regards,
-Han
== Patch start
diff --git a/gcc/cfgexpand.c b/gcc/cfgexpand.c
index 6d31e90..131c1b9 100644
--- a/gcc/cfgexpand.c
+++
LGTM
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 3:16 PM, asha...@google.com wrote:
Reviewers: xur, shenhan, jingyu,
Message:
This merges in the fix for ICE when using PGO when building Chrome.
Please review this at http://codereview.appspot.com/5541046/
Affected files:
M .
M
= 0; i 10; ++i)
+{
+ bb.two = bb.one + bb.two;
+ bb.three = bb.one + bb.two + bb.three;
+}
+ return bb.three;
+}
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times stack_chk_fail 10 } } */
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Han Shen(沈涵) shen...@google.com wrote:
Hi, further comments? Or ok
LGTM++
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 8:22 PM, asha...@google.com wrote:
Adding shenhan.
http://codereview.appspot.com/5501051/
Hi, further comments? Or ok for submit?
And as suggested by Diego, I'd like to make it upstream and google branch.
Thanks,
-Han
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Han Shen(沈涵) shen...@google.com wrote:
Hi, Jakub, thanks! Fixed!
Hi, Andrew, it's good suggestion. Done. Also modified foo10
Hi, Andrew and Richard, check via referenced vars is much easier, thanks!
Updated patches attached at EOM, also uploaded to
http://codereview.appspot.com/5461043
Hi, Diego, that's good suggestion. I'm glad to send this for trunk at
the next stage 1.
-Han
Updated patches
diff
stack_chk_fail 10 } } */
=
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 11:05:42AM -0800, Han Shen(沈涵) wrote:
--- a/gcc/cfgexpand.c
+++ b/gcc/cfgexpand.c
@@ -1507,15 +1507,34 @@ estimated_stack_frame_size (struct cgraph_node *node
at 2:32 PM, Andrew Pinski pins...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Han Shen(沈涵) shen...@google.com wrote:
+/* Address taken on struct. */
+int foo10()
+{
+ struct BB bb;
+ int i;
+ memset(bb, 5, sizeof bb);
+ for (i = 0; i 10; ++i)
+ {
+ bb.one = i
Hi, Joseph, thanks!
Yeah, I see where the problem is - I posted all these
(patchset,Changelog, rationale and previous gcc-patches discussion.)
on http://codereview.appspot.com/5394041
So in addition to that, I include them all here
==
This is a follow up for issue
Hi, Joseph, thanks!
ChangeLog entries added to the issue description.
ChangeLog
* Makefile.in (GPLUSPLUS_INCLUDE_DIR_ADD_SYSROOT): add a macro
definition to compile command.
* cppdefault.c (GPLUSPLUS_INCLUDE_DIR_ADD_SYSROOT): replace hard
coded add_sysroot field
39 matches
Mail list logo
