Re: [PATCH v3] libgo: Don't use pt_regs member in mcontext_t

On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 08:26:11AM +0100, Sören Tempel wrote: > Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > Have you tested this in 32-bit mode? It does not look correct based > > on the glibc definitions. Looking at glibc it seems that it ought to > > be > > As stated in the commit message, I have only

Re: [PATCH v3] libgo: Don't use pt_regs member in mcontext_t

On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 02:59:02PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > On Sun, Mar 6, 2022 at 11:11 PM wrote: > > > > +#ifdef __PPC64__ > > + ret.sigpc = ((ucontext_t*)(context))->uc_mcontext.gp_regs[32]; > > +#else > > + ret.sigpc = ((ucontext_t*)(context))->uc_mcontext.gregs[32]; > >

Re: [PATCH v2] libgo: Don't use pt_regs member in mcontext_t

s. > (dumpregs): Ditto. > --- > Changes since v1: Use .gp_regs/.gregs instead of .regs based on > feedback by Rich Felker, thereby avoiding the need to include > asm/ptrace.h for struct pt_regs. > > libgo/runtime/go-signal.c | 25 + > 1 file ch

Re: [gofrontend-dev] Re: [PATCH] libgo: include asm/ptrace.h for pt_regs definition on PowerPC

On Sun, Mar 06, 2022 at 10:22:56AM -0500, Rich Felker wrote: > On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 09:25:43AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc-patches > wrote: > > Note for gofrontend-dev: on gcc-patches only Andreas Schwab suggested > > using uc_regs instead of regs, which does look corre

Re: [gofrontend-dev] Re: [PATCH] libgo: include asm/ptrace.h for pt_regs definition on PowerPC

On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 09:25:43AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc-patches wrote: > Note for gofrontend-dev: on gcc-patches only Andreas Schwab suggested > using uc_regs instead of regs, which does look correct to me. Yes, this is absolutely the correct fix. Having pt_regs appear at all in code

Re: [musl] Re: [PATCH v2] configure: define TARGET_LIBC_GNUSTACK on musl

On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 03:40:00PM +0100, Dragan Mladjenovic wrote: > Hi, > > Looks fine to me. If possible, maybe it should even be back-ported > to stable branches. > > Not sure if MIPS assembly sources (if any) in musl would need > explicit ..note.GNU-stack > > to complement this? What are

Re: [PATCH] musl: Don't use gthr weak refs in libgcc PR91737

On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 11:31:02AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > On 11/15/19 3:00 AM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > > The gthr weak reference based single thread detection is unsafe with > > static linking and in case of dynamic linking it's ineffective on musl > > since pthread symbols are defined in

Re: [PATCH] musl: use correct long double abi by default

On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 01:22:20PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 06:58:24PM +, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > > 2019-11-15 Szabolcs Nagy > > > > * configure.ac (gcc_cv_target_ldbl128): Set for *-musl* targets. > > That is not what the patch does. It sets it to

Re: [ARM/FDPIC v5 03/21] [ARM] FDPIC: Force FDPIC related options unless -mno-fdpic is provided

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 11:34:06AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote: > > diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/linux-eabi.h b/gcc/config/arm/linux-eabi.h > > index 66ec0ea..d7cc923 100644 > > --- a/gcc/config/arm/linux-eabi.h > > +++ b/gcc/config/arm/linux-eabi.h > > @@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ > > #define

Re: [ARM/FDPIC v5 03/21] [ARM] FDPIC: Force FDPIC related options unless -mno-fdpic is provided

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 05:28:51PM +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote: > On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 18:06, Rich Felker wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 03:59:39PM +, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > > > On 15/05/2019 16:37, Rich Felker wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 15,

Re: [ARM/FDPIC v5 03/21] [ARM] FDPIC: Force FDPIC related options unless -mno-fdpic is provided

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 03:59:39PM +, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > On 15/05/2019 16:37, Rich Felker wrote: > > On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 05:12:11PM +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote: > >> On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 16:37, Rich Felker wrote: > >>> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 01:55:3

Re: [ARM/FDPIC v5 03/21] [ARM] FDPIC: Force FDPIC related options unless -mno-fdpic is provided

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 05:12:11PM +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote: > On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 16:37, Rich Felker wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 01:55:30PM +, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > > > On 15/05/2019 13:39, Christophe Lyon wrote: > > > > In FDPIC mode, w

Re: [ARM/FDPIC v5 03/21] [ARM] FDPIC: Force FDPIC related options unless -mno-fdpic is provided

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 01:55:30PM +, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > On 15/05/2019 13:39, Christophe Lyon wrote: > > In FDPIC mode, we set -fPIE unless the user provides -fno-PIE, -fpie, > > -fPIC or -fpic: indeed FDPIC code is PIC, but we want to generate code > > for executables rather than shared

Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] or1k: gcc: initial support for openrisc

On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 11:13:53AM +, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > On 04/11/18 09:05, Stafford Horne wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 02:28:11PM +, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > >> On 27/10/18 05:37, Stafford Horne wrote: > ... > >>> +#undef LINK_SPEC > >>> +#define LINK_SPEC "%{h*} \

Re: RFC: [PATCH] x86: Add -mzero-caller-saved-regs=[skip|used|all]

On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 11:10:29AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: > Add -mzero-caller-saved-regs=[skip|used|all] command-line option and > zero_caller_saved_regs("skip|used|all") function attribue: Minor nit, but could this be named -mzero-call-clobbered-regs? "Caller-saved" is a misnomer and inconsistent

Re: [PATCH] libgcc: m68k: avoid TEXTRELs in shared library (PR 86224)

On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 08:47:33PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > On Jul 28 2018, sly...@inbox.ru wrote: > > > From: Sergei Trofimovich > > > > Cc: Ian Lance Taylor > > Cc: Jeff Law > > Cc: Andreas Schwab > > Signed-off-by: Sergei Trofimovich > > --- > > libgcc/config/m68k/lb1sf68.S | 19

Re: [RFA][PATCH] Stack clash protection 07/08 -- V4 (aarch64 bits)

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 03:48:41PM +, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > On 28/10/17 05:08, Jeff Law wrote: > > On 10/13/2017 02:26 PM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote: > >> For larger frames the first oddity is that there are now 2 separate params > >> controlling how probes are generated: > >> > >>

Re: [PATCH] Use Pcrt1.o%s/gPcrt1.o%s for -static-pie

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 06:16:57AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: > crt1.o is used to create dynamic and non-PIE static executables. Static > PIE needs to link with Pcrt1.o, instead of crt1.o, to relocate static PIE > at run-time. When -pg is used with -static-pie, gPcrt1.o should be used. > > Tested on

Re: [PATCH][i386][musl] Add cpuinfo to static libgcc only on *-musl*

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 05:40:04PM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote: > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > > The __cpu_indicator_init and __cpu_model symbols are not safe to use > > from shared libgcc_s.so from ifunc resolvers, so since gcc-6, only > > the

Re: [PATCH v4] SH FDPIC backend support

On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 02:08:34PM +0900, Oleg Endo wrote: > On Wed, 2015-11-11 at 09:56 -0500, Rich Felker wrote: > > > Sorry, I don't really understand RTL well enough to make a code > > snippet. What I want to express is that an insn "uses" (in the (use >

Re: [PATCH] Fix SH/FDPIC bad codegen with ssp enabled

On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 09:24:32AM +0900, Kaz Kojima wrote: > Rich Felker <dal...@libc.org> wrote: > > The "chk_guard_add" pattern used for loading the GOT slot address for > > __stack_chk_guard hard-codes use of r12 as a fixed GOT register and > > thus is no

[PATCH] Fix SH/FDPIC bad codegen with ssp enabled

k entirely if possible. I tried non-FDPIC with it disabled and did not experience any problems; I suspect it was written to work around a bug that no longer exists. 2015-11-13 Rich Felker <dal...@libc.org> gcc/ * config/sh/sh.md (symGOT_load): Suppress __stack_chk_guard

Re: [PATCH, x86] Fix posix_memalign declaration in mm_malloc.h

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 09:58:30PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 11/13/2015 06:11 PM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > >Followup to https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-05/msg01433.html > > > >The posix_memalign declaration is incompatible with musl libc in C++, > >because of the exception

Re: [PATCH v4] SH FDPIC backend support

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 09:56:42AM -0500, Rich Felker wrote: > > > I'm actually > > > trying to prepare a simpler FDPIC patch for other gcc versions we're > > > interested in that's not so invasive, and for now I'm just having > > > function_symbol

Re: [PATCH v4] SH FDPIC backend support

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:36:26PM +0900, Oleg Endo wrote: > On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 15:07 -0500, Rich Felker wrote: > > > > The way libcalls are now emitted is a bit unhandy. If more special > > > -ABI > > > libcalls are to be added in the future, they all have t

Re: [PATCH v4] SH FDPIC backend support

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:01:39PM +0900, Oleg Endo wrote: > On Mon, 2015-10-26 at 22:47 -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 11:28:51PM +0900, Oleg Endo wrote: > > > On Fri, 2015-10-23 at 02:32 -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > > > > Here's my upda

Re: [PATCH] Add missing INCLUDE_DEFAULTS_MUSL_LOCAL

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:42:37PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Mon, 26 Oct 2015, Rich Felker wrote: > > > musl explicitly does not support using a mix of libc headers and > > compiler-provided freestanding headers. While there may be > > In that case the GCC port

Re: [PATCH] Add missing INCLUDE_DEFAULTS_MUSL_LOCAL

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:16:16AM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Mon, 26 Oct 2015, Rich Felker wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:42:37PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > > > On Mon, 26 Oct 2015, Rich Felker wrote: > > > > > > > musl explicitly do

Re: [PATCH v4] SH FDPIC backend support

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 11:28:51PM +0900, Oleg Endo wrote: > On Fri, 2015-10-23 at 02:32 -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > > Here's my updated version of the FDPIC patch with all requested > > changes made and Changelog added. I've included all the original > > authors. This is

Re: [PATCH] Add missing INCLUDE_DEFAULTS_MUSL_LOCAL

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 12:32:01PM +, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > On 23/10/15 21:20, Joseph Myers wrote: > >On Fri, 23 Oct 2015, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > > > >>i think bsd libcs do the same, compiler headers interfering > >>with libc headers is problematic (e.g. FLT_ROUNDS is wrong > >>in gcc

[PATCH v4] SH FDPIC backend support

t;d...@codesourcery.com> Joseph Myers <jos...@codesourcery.com> Mark Shinwell <shinw...@codesourcery.com> Andrew Stubbs <a...@codesourcery.com> Rich Felker <dal...@libc.org> gcc/ * config.gcc: Handle --ena

Re: [PATCH v3] SH FDPIC backend support

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 10:17:51PM +0900, Oleg Endo wrote: > Rich, > > Thanks for the updated patch. > Please do not start new threads for a continuation of an existing > thread. This makes it difficult to track in the archives. > > On Tue, 2015-10-20 at 23:41 -04

[PATCH v3] SH FDPIC backend support

Attached is a hopefully near-ready-for-commit version of the SH/FDPIC patch. I believe I've addressed all comments by Oleg and Kaz on the previous versions of the patch. I'm still working on drafting the Changelog entry (there's a lot to go in it, and I might very well be going into more detail

Re: [PATCH v2] SH FDPIC backend support

On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 07:22:59AM +0900, Oleg Endo wrote: > On Tue, 2015-10-06 at 12:52 -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > > > > + if (TARGET_FDPIC) > > > > +{ > > > > + rtx a = force_reg (Pmode, plus_constant (Pmode, XEXP (tramp_mem, > &g

Re: [PATCH v2] SH FDPIC backend support

On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 09:39:20PM +0900, Oleg Endo wrote: > On Mon, 2015-10-05 at 23:15 -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > > Attached is the initial version of the patch against trunk. I've fixed > > the functional issues I'm aware of from the previous version: ICE in > > generating

[PATCH v2] SH FDPIC backend support

On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 07:36:27AM +0900, Oleg Endo wrote: > On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 17:35 -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > > This is a forward-port of the abandoned SH FDPIC patch from 2010: > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-08/msg01536.html > > > >

Re: [PATCH] SH FDPIC backend support

On Sun, Oct 04, 2015 at 02:10:42PM +0900, Oleg Endo wrote: > On Sat, 2015-10-03 at 18:34 -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > > > > > > I found and fixed the problem, but I have a new concern: calls to the > > > new shift instructions are using the following address forms:

Re: [PATCH] SH FDPIC backend support

On Sat, Oct 03, 2015 at 05:17:53PM +0900, Oleg Endo wrote: > On Sat, 2015-10-03 at 00:50 -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > > > I have -mfdpic in the self-specs when FDPIC_DEFAULT is defined, so I > > think only the positive form is needed. > > Having positive and negative

Re: [PATCH] SH FDPIC backend support

On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 09:30:17PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > But trying the patch on vanilla GCC trunk without my usual J2 target > setup revealed some additional issues I need to address. I'm getting > ICE in the code that generates the libgcc bitshift calls, which > weren'

Re: [PATCH] SH FDPIC backend support

On Sat, Oct 03, 2015 at 03:12:16PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 09:30:17PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > > But trying the patch on vanilla GCC trunk without my usual J2 target > > setup revealed some additional issues I need to address. I'm getting >

Re: [PATCH] SH FDPIC backend support

On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 11:18:32AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > > > +#ifdef __FDPIC__ > > > +#define udiv_qrnnd(q, r, n1, n0, d) \ > > > + do { > > > \ > > > +

Re: [PATCH] SH FDPIC backend support

On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 10:51:03PM +0900, Oleg Endo wrote: > On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 21:30 -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > > > If you have any other general comments on the patch in the mean time > > I'd be happy to hear them. > > Below are some comments. Might be a bit uns

Re: [PATCH] SH FDPIC backend support

On Sat, Oct 03, 2015 at 06:57:56AM +0900, Kaz Kojima wrote: > Rich Felker <dal...@libc.org> wrote: > > I worked around it and opened an issue for it: > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67812 > > > > But trying the patch on vanilla GCC tru

Re: [PATCH] SH FDPIC backend support

On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 07:36:27AM +0900, Oleg Endo wrote: > On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 17:35 -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > > This is a forward-port of the abandoned SH FDPIC patch from 2010: > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-08/msg01536.html > > > >

[PATCH] SH FDPIC backend support

This is a forward-port of the abandoned SH FDPIC patch from 2010: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-08/msg01536.html I'm submitting it at this point for initial review, not to be applied right away; I would not be surprised if some changes are needed. It applies on top of gcc 5.2.0 with

Re: [PATCH] SH FDPIC backend support

On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 07:39:10PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 07:36:27AM +0900, Oleg Endo wrote: > > On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 17:35 -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > > > This is a forward-port of the abandoned SH FDPIC patch from 2010: > > > >

Re: [PATCH] add static-linked PIE support

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 09:34:07PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > This is the gcc side support of the static-linked PIE functionality > added to binutils in commit 9b8b325a1f4cdaf235e7d803849dde6ededec865: And unfortunately I wasn't aware of this: https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit

[PATCH] add static-linked PIE support

that support gets detected. 2015-09-14 Rich Felker <dal...@libc.org> * config/gnu-user.h (GNU_USER_TARGET_STARTFILE_SPEC): use rcrt1.o for static-linked PIE. * gcc.c (LINK_PIE_SPEC): pass --no-dynamic-linker to linker for static-linked PIE. --- gcc-5.2.0.or

Re: [PATCH] fix TLS support detection for sh targets

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 07:08:33AM +0900, Kaz Kojima wrote: > Rich Felker <dal...@libc.org> wrote: > > I'm pretty sure this will still apply to trunk, but I can check that > > and add the changelog entry. Is there something I should read on the > > form or just foll

Re: [PATCH] fix TLS support detection for sh targets

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 06:06:02PM +0100, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > On 14/09/15 17:58, Rich Felker wrote: > >trunk. For the ChangeLog message, do I need to list both configure and > >configure.ac or just the latter? And should configure be included in > >the patch like I did

[PATCH v2] fix TLS support detection for sh targets

2015-09-14 Rich Felker <dal...@libc.org> * gcc/configure.ac: Change target pattern for sh TLS support test from "sh[34]-*-*" to "sh[123456789lbe]*-*-*". * gcc/configure: Regenerate. diff --git a/gcc/configure b/gcc/configure index 846c996

[PATCH] fix TLS support detection for sh targets

Bad patterns caused configure to always disable TLS for big-endian sh targets and for anything other than sh 3/4. Rich --- gcc-5.2.0.base/gcc/configure.ac 2015-08-11 16:23:36.0 + +++ gcc-5.2.0/gcc/configure.ac 2015-09-13 08:17:31.714972082 + @@ -3300,7 +3300,7 @@

Re: [PATCH] fix TLS support detection for sh targets

On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 06:55:56PM +0900, Kaz Kojima wrote: > Rich Felker <dal...@libc.org> wrote: > > Bad patterns caused configure to always disable TLS for big-endian sh > > targets and for anything other than sh 3/4. > > Could you please give a patch for th

Re: Reviving SH FDPIC target

On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 06:04:15PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 04:16:40PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > > One thing I've noticed that's odd is that gcc -mfdpic -fPIC produces > > different (less efficient) code from just gcc -mfdpic, which seems > &

Re: Reviving SH FDPIC target

On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 04:16:40PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 11:53:45AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 02:58:39PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > > > On Wed, 2 Sep 2015, Rich Felker wrote: > > > > > > > S

Re: Reviving SH FDPIC target

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:49:19PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 04:16:40PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 11:53:45AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 02:58:39PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > > > > O

Re: Reviving SH FDPIC target

On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 11:53:45AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 02:58:39PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > > On Wed, 2 Sep 2015, Rich Felker wrote: > > > > > So if __fpscr_values was the only reason for patch 1/3 in the FDPIC > > > pat

Re: Reviving SH FDPIC target

On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 06:04:15PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 04:16:40PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > > One thing I've noticed that's odd is that gcc -mfdpic -fPIC produces > > different (less efficient) code from just gcc -mfdpic, which seems > &

Re: Reviving SH FDPIC target

On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 02:58:39PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Wed, 2 Sep 2015, Rich Felker wrote: > > > So if __fpscr_values was the only reason for patch 1/3 in the FDPIC > > patchset, I think we can safely drop it. And patch 2/3 was already > > committed, so 3/3,

Re: Reviving SH FDPIC target

On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 05:05:35PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 07:59:45PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > > On Wed, 2 Sep 2015, Rich Felker wrote: > > > > > Also, according to Joseph Myers, there was some unresolved > > > disagreement

Reviving SH FDPIC target

I've started work on reviving the FDPIC support patch for the SH target, which was proposed upstream in 2010 then abandoned: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-08/msg01464.html Right now I'm in the process of determining what parts can be applied as-is to current gcc, and what parts need to

Re: Reviving SH FDPIC target

On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 07:59:45PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Wed, 2 Sep 2015, Rich Felker wrote: > > > Also, according to Joseph Myers, there was some unresolved > > disagreement that stalled (and eventually sunk) the old patch, so if > > anyone's still a

Re: [PATCH] add initial support for J2 core to sh target

On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 01:24:55AM +0900, Oleg Endo wrote: > > I'm not sure what the best way to achieve multiple goals is, but the > > current behavior makes it so you need --isa=any (and a final binary > > with weird ABI tag) to have a binary that supports atomic operations > > on any SH model.

Re: [PATCH] add initial support for J2 core to sh target

On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 10:45:10PM +0900, Oleg Endo wrote: > Hi Rich, > > On 01 Sep 2015, at 02:49, Rich Felker <dal...@libc.org> wrote: > > > The J2 Core is an open hardware cpu implementing the SH-2 instruction > > set, with the addition of barrel shift instruct

[PATCH] add initial support for J2 core to sh target

The J2 Core is an open hardware cpu implementing the SH-2 instruction set, with the addition of barrel shift instructions and an atomic compare-and-swap instruction. This patch adds a cpu model option -mj2 to the sh target. Presently all it does is enable use of the barrel shift instructions (and

[PATCH] fix --with-cpu for sh targets

A missing * in the pattern for sh targets prevents the --with-cpu configure option from being accepted for certain targets (e.g. ones with explicit endianness, like sh2eb). The latest config.sub should also be pulled from upstream since it has a fix for related issues. Rich ---

Re: [PATCH 7/13] powerpc musl support

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 06:25:14PM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: * David Edelsohn dje@gmail.com [2015-08-24 10:21:05 -0400]: Patch v2. Powerpc does not include the top level linux.h, so I had to repeat the include order fixes from there in rs6000/sysv4.h. I corrected the

Re: confirm subscribe to gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org

Re: [PATCH i386] Allow sibcalls in no-PLT PIC

On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 02:10:41PM +0200, Michael Matz wrote: Hi, On Tue, 19 May 2015, Richard Henderson wrote: It is. The relaxation that HJ is working on requires that the reads from the got not be hoisted. I'm not especially convinced that what he's working on is a win.

Re: [PATCH i386] Allow sibcalls in no-PLT PIC

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 05:10:11PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Rich Felker dal...@libc.org wrote: On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 01:27:06PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Rich Felker dal...@libc.org wrote: On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 12:17:18PM -0700

Re: [PATCH i386] Allow sibcalls in no-PLT PIC

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 12:17:18PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote: On 05/19/2015 12:06 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote: On 05/19/2015 11:06 AM, Rich Felker wrote

Re: [PATCH i386] Allow sibcalls in no-PLT PIC

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 01:27:06PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Rich Felker dal...@libc.org wrote: On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 12:17:18PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote: On 05/19/2015 12:06 PM, H.J

Re: [PATCH i386] Allow sibcalls in no-PLT PIC

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 04:43:53PM +0200, Michael Matz wrote: Hi, On Fri, 15 May 2015, Rich Felker wrote: Forget lazy binding. It's dead anyway because serious distros want PIE+relro+bindnow+... You keep saying this, but I can't help the feeling it's mostly because musl doesn't

Re: [PATCH i386] Allow sibcalls in no-PLT PIC

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 06:01:07PM +0200, Michael Matz wrote: Hi, On Tue, 19 May 2015, Jeff Law wrote: Forget lazy binding. It's dead anyway because serious distros want PIE+relro+bindnow+... You keep saying this, but I can't help the feeling it's mostly because musl

Re: [PATCH i386] Allow sibcalls in no-PLT PIC

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 11:59:00AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote: On 05/19/2015 11:06 AM, Rich Felker wrote: I'm still mildly worried that concerns for supporting relaxation might lead to decisions not to optimize code in ways that would be difficult to relax (e.g. certain types of address

Re: [PATCH i386] Allow sibcalls in no-PLT PIC

On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 11:59:56AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 7:19 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Rich Felker dal...@libc.org wrote: On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 04:34:57PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:30 PM, H.J. Lu

Re: [PATCH i386] Allow sibcalls in no-PLT PIC

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 04:34:57PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:30 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:14 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote: My relax branch proposal works even without LTO. I will borrow GOTPCREL from x86-64 and do

Re: [PATCH i386] Allow sibcalls in no-PLT PIC

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 04:14:07PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:08 PM, Jan Hubicka hubi...@ucw.cz wrote: Hello, There are codes like extern void foo (void); void bar (void) { foo (); } Even with LTO, compiler may have to assume foo is external when

Re: [PATCH i386] Allow sibcalls in no-PLT PIC

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 01:08:15PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: With relax branch in 32-bit, there are 2 cases: 1. PIC or PIE: We generate set up EBX relax call foo@PLT It is almost the same as we do now, except for the relax prefix. If foo is defined in another shared library or may be

Re: [PATCH i386] Allow sibcalls in no-PLT PIC

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 01:35:14PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Rich Felker dal...@libc.org wrote: On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 01:08:15PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: With relax branch in 32-bit, there are 2 cases: 1. PIC or PIE: We generate set up EBX relax call foo

Re: [PATCH] Expand PIC calls without PLT with -fno-plt

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 01:48:03PM +0200, Michael Matz wrote: Hi, On Wed, 6 May 2015, Rich Felker wrote: I don't see how this case is improved unless GCC is failing to consider strong definitions in the same TU as locally-binding. Interposition of non-static non-inline non-weak

Re: PATCH] PR target/65612: Multiversioning doesn't work with DSO nor PIE

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 12:31:51PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 11:20:15AM +0100, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: On 09/05/15 19:57, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: * H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com [2015-05-09 10:41:41 -0700]: There are 4: 2b70 806 FUNC

Re: PATCH] PR target/65612: Multiversioning doesn't work with DSO nor PIE

On Sat, May 09, 2015 at 10:41:41AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 7:31 AM, Szabolcs Nagy n...@port70.net wrote: * H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com [2015-04-17 05:36:30 -0700]: On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 4:59 AM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 04:48:48AM

Re: [PATCH 6/13] mips musl support

On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 03:41:31PM +0100, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: I.e. as it stands this patch is not OK for backporting to GCC 5 without further discussion. There is also the perspective that we should be able to aim for an ABI variant agnostic dynamic linker at some point over the next

Re: [PATCH 6/13] mips musl support

On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 02:25:11PM +, Matthew Fortune wrote: H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com writes: On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 7:40 AM, Szabolcs Nagy szabolcs.n...@arm.com wrote: On 21/04/15 15:59, Matthew Fortune wrote: Rich Felker dal...@libc.org writes: On Tue, Apr 21, 2015

Re: [PATCH 6/13] mips musl support

On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 04:50:28PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: On Fri, 8 May 2015, Rich Felker wrote: On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 03:41:31PM +0100, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: I.e. as it stands this patch is not OK for backporting to GCC 5 without further discussion. There is also

Re: PATCH] PR target/65612: Multiversioning doesn't work with DSO nor PIE

On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 05:36:30AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: On Fri, Apr 17, 2015@4:59 AM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 04:48:48AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: I don't like it. Nonshared libgcc is libgcc.a, period. No sense in creating yet another library for that.

Re: [PATCH] Expand PIC calls without PLT with -fno-plt

On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 11:44:57AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Rich Felker dal...@libc.org wrote: On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 11:26:29AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Rich Felker dal...@libc.org wrote: On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 07:43:58PM +0300

Re: [PATCH] Expand PIC calls without PLT with -fno-plt

On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 07:43:58PM +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote: On Wed, 6 May 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote: The linker would know very well what kind of relocations are used for particular PLT slot, and for the new relocations which would resolve to the address of the .got.plt slot it could

Re: [PATCH] Expand PIC calls without PLT with -fno-plt

On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 12:05:20PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: -Bsymbolic will bind all references to local definitions in shared libraries, with and without visibility, weak or non-weak. Compiler can use it in binds_tls_local_p and we can generate much better codes in shared libraries.

Re: [PATCH] Expand PIC calls without PLT with -fno-plt

On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 11:26:29AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Rich Felker dal...@libc.org wrote: On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 07:43:58PM +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote: On Wed, 6 May 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote: The linker would know very well what kind of relocations

Re: [PATCH] Expand PIC calls without PLT with -fno-plt

On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 11:42:20AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: On 05/04/2015 11:39 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 11:34:05AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: On 05/04/2015 10:37 AM, Alexander Monakov wrote: This patch introduces option -fno-plt that allows to expand calls that would go

Re: [PATCH 6/13] mips musl support

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 01:58:02PM +, Matthew Fortune wrote: Szabolcs Nagy szabolcs.n...@arm.com writes: Set up dynamic linker name for mips. gcc/Changelog: 2015-04-16 Gregor Richards gregor.richa...@uwaterloo.ca * config/mips/linux.h (MUSL_DYNAMIC_LINKER): Define. I

Re: RFC: PATCHES: Properly handle reference to protected data on x86

On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 06:39:10AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote: On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 3:26 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote: Protected symbol means that it can't be pre-emptied. It doesn't mean its address won't be external. This is true for pointer to protected function. With copy

Re: [PATCH] proposed fix for bug # 61144

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 09:17:12PM +0400, Alexander Monakov wrote: On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Alexander Monakov wrote: I'd like to push this topic forward a bit. I've bootstrapped and regtested a version of the patch based on the initial proposal to check DECL_WEAK. The approach with

Re: [PATCH] proposed fix for bug # 61144

On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:06:04AM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote: Are the attached files acceptable? The testcase looks OK to me, but it already should be fixed on mainline by patch https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-05/msg01315.html that prevents dummy to be marked as constant. You

Re: [PATCH] proposed fix for bug # 61144

On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 06:05:19PM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote: This needs your decl_replaceable change to not be optimized to if (0), because of the explicit const modifier. The case I care about actually has dummy as const (with the intent that it be allocated in a read-only section if

Re: [PATCH] proposed fix for bug # 61144

Ping. Do you have any feedback on my tests? What is the next step? Rich On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 03:40:44PM +0400, Alexander Monakov wrote: On Fri, 6 Jun 2014, Rich Felker wrote: On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 12:26:18PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: On 05/21/14 21:59, Rich Felker wrote: On Wed

Re: [PATCH] proposed fix for bug # 61144

On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 03:40:44PM +0400, Alexander Monakov wrote: On Fri, 6 Jun 2014, Rich Felker wrote: On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 12:26:18PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: On 05/21/14 21:59, Rich Felker wrote: On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 11:17:53AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: On Wed, May 21

Re: [PATCH] proposed fix for bug # 61144

On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 12:26:18PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: On 05/21/14 21:59, Rich Felker wrote: On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 11:17:53AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 3:59 AM, Rich Felker dal...@libc.org wrote: Bug # 61144 is a regression in 4.9.0 that breaks building of musl

  1   2   >