So ok to commit?
Ok with the change suggested by Richard, I think it was:
addr = copy_to_mode_reg (Pmode, XEXP (shadow_mem, 0));
Done, r204251. Tested against x64 and ARM.
-Y
so in the end I guess I have nothing against the original patch
(with whatever form of the copy to reg call is desirable).
So ok to commit?
-Y
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:32:14AM +0400, Yury Gribov wrote:
so in the end I guess I have nothing against the original patch
(with whatever form of the copy to reg call is desirable).
So ok to commit?
Ok with the change suggested by Richard, I think it was:
addr = copy_to_mode_reg
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 09:35:21AM +0400, Yury Gribov wrote:
I've recently submitted a bug report regarding invalid
unpoisoning of stack frame redzones
(http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58543). Could someone
take a look at proposed patch (a simple one-liner) and check whether
it's
Sorry for the delay, I finally found time to look at it.
Np, thanks for helping!
While your patch fixes the issue, I wonder
...
potentially increase register pressure.
Makes sense. I didn't take care of this because I believed that we can
freely allocate vregs and rely on register
Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com writes:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 09:35:21AM +0400, Yury Gribov wrote:
I've recently submitted a bug report regarding invalid
unpoisoning of stack frame redzones
(http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58543). Could someone
take a look at proposed patch (a
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 12:25:33PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Any updates on this one? Note that this bug is a huge blocker for
using AddressSanitizer on ARM platforms.
Sorry for the delay, I finally found time to look at it.
While your patch fixes the issue, I wonder if for the
Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com writes:
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 12:25:33PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Any updates on this one? Note that this bug is a huge blocker for
using AddressSanitizer on ARM platforms.
Sorry for the delay, I finally found time to look at it.
While your patch
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 01:06:21PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
If it is a pseudo, it is certainly a pseudo that isn't used for
anything else, as it is the result of (base 3) + constant, if it isn't a
pseudo, then supposedly it is better not to just keep adding the offsets to
a base
I've recently submitted a bug report regarding invalid unpoisoning
of stack frame redzones
(http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58543). Could someone take
a look at proposed patch (a simple one-liner) and check whether it's ok
for commit?
Can you please be more verbose
Do you
Hi Jakub,
I've recently submitted a bug report regarding invalid unpoisoning
of stack frame redzones
(http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58543). Could someone take
a look at proposed patch (a simple one-liner) and check whether it's ok
for commit?
Can you please be more verbose
Can you please be more verbose
Right, I should have been.
So as you can see from the asm log in the bug description, prologue
writes shadow bytes corresponding to words at frame_shadow_base + { 0,
4, 8, 12, 16, 24, 28}. Epilogue should clear those but instead it zeros
out frame_shadow_base
Hi all,
I've recently submitted a bug report regarding invalid unpoisoning of
stack frame redzones
(http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58543). Could someone take
a look at proposed patch (a simple one-liner) and check whether it's ok
for commit?
Thanks!
-Yuri
diff --git
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 06:10:41PM +0400, Yury Gribov wrote:
Hi all,
I've recently submitted a bug report regarding invalid unpoisoning
of stack frame redzones
(http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58543). Could someone
take a look at proposed patch (a simple one-liner) and check
14 matches
Mail list logo
