Hi, Segher,
> On Oct 29, 2020, at 2:31 PM, Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 06:02:58PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches writes:
> +Return-Oriented Programming (ROP) or preventing information leak
leakage
(FWIW, I'm
> On Oct 29, 2020, at 1:06 PM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>
> Qing Zhao writes:
>> Now, the documentation (gcc.info) is like following, let me know any issue
>> there:
>
> Yeah, looks good apart from merging
>
>> In order to satisfy users with different security needs and control
>>
> On Oct 29, 2020, at 1:02 PM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>
> Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches writes:
+Return-Oriented Programming (ROP) or preventing information leak
>>>
>>> leakage
>>>
>>> (FWIW, I'm not sure “mitigating ROP” is really correct usage, but I don't
>>> have any better
On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 06:02:58PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches writes:
> >>> +Return-Oriented Programming (ROP) or preventing information leak
> >>
> >> leakage
> >>
> >> (FWIW, I'm not sure “mitigating ROP” is really correct usage, but I don't
> >> have any
Qing Zhao writes:
> Now, the documentation (gcc.info) is like following, let me know any issue
> there:
Yeah, looks good apart from merging
> In order to satisfy users with different security needs and control
> the run-time overhead at the same time, CHOICE parameter provides a
>
Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches writes:
>>> +Return-Oriented Programming (ROP) or preventing information leak
>>
>> leakage
>>
>> (FWIW, I'm not sure “mitigating ROP” is really correct usage, but I don't
>> have any better suggestions.)
>
> Do you mean whether “mitigating ROP’ is one of the major
Hi, Richard,
Now, the documentation (gcc.info) is like following, let me know any issue
there:
thanks.
Qing
==
'zero_call_used_regs ("CHOICE")'
The 'zero_call_used_regs' attribute causes the compiler to zero a
subset of all call-used registers(1) at function return.
> On Oct 29, 2020, at 6:09 AM, Richard Sandiford
> wrote:
>
> Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches writes:
>> +/* Handle a "zero_call_used_regs" attribute; arguments as in
>> + struct attribute_spec.handler. */
>> +
>> +static tree
>> +handle_zero_call_used_regs_attribute (tree *node, tree name,
Qing Zhao via Gcc-patches writes:
> +/* Handle a "zero_call_used_regs" attribute; arguments as in
> + struct attribute_spec.handler. */
> +
> +static tree
> +handle_zero_call_used_regs_attribute (tree *node, tree name, tree args,
> + int ARG_UNUSED (flags),
>
On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 12:55 AM Qing Zhao wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> This is the 5th version of the implementation of patch -fzero-call-used-regs.
>
> The major change compared to the previous version (4th version) are:
>
> 1. Documentation change per Richard’s suggestion;
> 2. Use namespace for
Hi,
This is the 5th version of the implementation of patch -fzero-call-used-regs.
The major change compared to the previous version (4th version) are:
1. Documentation change per Richard’s suggestion;
2. Use namespace for zero_regs_code;
3. Add more general testing cases per Richard’s
11 matches
Mail list logo
