Hi Jakub,
Thank you and I committed the patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revisionrevision=220083.
regards,
Venkat.
On 24 January 2015 at 20:38, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 08:09:24PM +0530, Venkataramanan Kumar wrote:
Index: libsanitizer/ChangeLog
Hi Rainer,
Please find the corrected patch attached. I removed some eval
statements I added for debugging.
regards,
Venkat,
On 24 January 2015 at 13:23, Venkataramanan Kumar
venkataramanan.ku...@linaro.org wrote:
Hi Rainer,
I reused libgcc's host_address test and the patch passed normal
Hi Jakub,
On 24 January 2015 at 14:40, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 01:23:22PM +0530, Venkataramanan Kumar wrote:
I reused libgcc's host_address test and the patch passed normal
bootstrap in x86_64.
Can you please check if this is fine ?
Can't you just use
Hi Rainer,
Yes thanks I will work on fixing this. Let me know if I need to revert
the patch meanwhile.
regards,
Venkat.
On 24 January 2015 at 02:23, Rainer Orth r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de wrote:
Hi Venkat,
I committed the patch with the change log corrections you said.
, Jan 22, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 07:30:50PM +0530, Venkataramanan Kumar wrote:
ping.
Forgot to mention, GCC bootstraps and regression testing passed on x86_64.
Well, without a change from upstream to guard the HACKY_CALL and actual
/ChangeLog
===
--- libsanitizer/ChangeLog (revision 220077)
+++ libsanitizer/ChangeLog (working copy)
@@ -1,5 +1,10 @@
2015-01-25 Venkataramanan Kumar venkataramanan.ku...@linaro.org
+ * configure.ac: Set host_address
ping.
Forgot to mention, GCC bootstraps and regression testing passed on x86_64.
regards,
Venkat.
On 20 January 2015 at 18:51, Venkataramanan Kumar
venkataramanan.ku...@linaro.org wrote:
Hi all,
This patch changes make file and configure under libsanitizer, to
separate out X86_64 specific
ping. Segher do you any comments from your side.
regards,
Venkat.
On 14 January 2015 at 16:57, Venkataramanan Kumar
venkataramanan.ku...@linaro.org wrote:
Hi all,
When trying to debug GCC combiner pass with the test case in PR63949
ref https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63949 I
wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 07:30:50PM +0530, Venkataramanan Kumar wrote:
ping.
Forgot to mention, GCC bootstraps and regression testing passed on x86_64.
Well, without a change from upstream to guard the HACKY_CALL and actual tsan
port to non-x86_64 this patch doesn't solve anything
Thank you Segher, I will send an updated patch for stage 1.
regards,
Venkat.
On 22 January 2015 at 21:46, Segher Boessenkool
seg...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 07:29:28PM +0530, Venkataramanan Kumar wrote:
ping. Segher do you any comments from your side.
I agree
Hi all,
This patch changes make file and configure under libsanitizer, to
separate out X86_64 specific file tsan_rtl_amd64.S from getting
build for targets other than X86_64.
Ok for trunk?
Please review.
regards,
Venkat,
ChangeLog
2015-01-19 Venkataramanan Kumar
Hi jeff and Richard
On 15 January 2015 at 03:10, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
On 01/14/15 04:27, Venkataramanan Kumar wrote:
Hi all,
When trying to debug GCC combiner pass with the test case in PR63949
ref https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63949 I came across this
code
Hi all,
When trying to debug GCC combiner pass with the test case in PR63949
ref https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63949 I came across this code.
This code in make_compound_operation assumes that all PLUS and MINUS
RTX are MEM type for scalar int modes and tries to optimize based on
that GCC will allocate a fresh register.
regards,
Venkat.
On 17 September 2014 03:06, Andrew Pinski pins...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 1:18 AM, James Greenhalgh
james.greenha...@arm.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 08:42:31AM +0100, Venkataramanan Kumar wrote:
Hi maintainers,
I
, Venkataramanan Kumar
venkataramanan.ku...@linaro.org wrote:
Hi James,
Yes we can just mark operand 3 as r.
PFB, the updated patch. Ok for trunk?
regards,
Venkat.
gcc/ChangeLog
2014-09-04 Venkataramanan Kumar venkataramanan.ku...@linaro.org
* config/aarch64/aarch64.md
/ChangeLog
2014-09-04 Venkataramanan Kumar venkataramanan.ku...@linaro.org
* config/aarch64/aarch64.md (stack_protect_test_mode) Add register
constraint for operand 0.
diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md
index b5be79c..77588b9 100644
--- a/gcc/config
Hi maintainers,
I just added =r and retested it.
gcc/ChangeLog
2014-09-04 Venkataramanan Kumar venkataramanan.ku...@linaro.org
* config/aarch64/aarch64.md (stack_protect_test_mode) Add register
constraint for operand 0.
diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md b/gcc/config
Hi James,
Yes we can just mark operand 3 as r.
PFB, the updated patch. Ok for trunk?
regards,
Venkat.
gcc/ChangeLog
2014-09-04 Venkataramanan Kumar venkataramanan.ku...@linaro.org
* config/aarch64/aarch64.md (stack_protect_test_mode) Add register
constraint for operand 0
Hi Jiong,
(Snip)
+ (op0 == virtual_stack_vars_rtx
+ || op0 == frame_pointer_rtx
+ || op0 == arg_pointer_rtx)
(Snip)
The above check is means that these are the ways to access the frame.
is it possible to have stack_pointer_rtx has op0?
On 1 August 2014 14:01, Jiong Wang
Hi Ramana/Maxim,
On 18 June 2014 16:05, Venkataramanan Kumar
venkataramanan.ku...@linaro.org wrote:
Hi Ramana,
On 18 June 2014 15:29, Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Venkataramanan Kumar
venkataramanan.ku...@linaro.org wrote:
Hi
Hi Ramana,
On 18 June 2014 15:29, Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Venkataramanan Kumar
venkataramanan.ku...@linaro.org wrote:
Hi Maintainers,
This patch fixes the PR 60617 that occurs when we turn on reload pass
in thumb2 mode
Hi Maintainers,
This patch fixes the PR 60617 that occurs when we turn on reload pass
in thumb2 mode.
It occurs for the pattern *ior_scc_scc that gets generated for the 3
argument of the below function call.
JIT:emitStoreInt32(dst,regT0m, (op1 == dst || op2 == dst)));
(snip---)
(insn 634
no immediately obvious reason why the two tests that require
target native require the native constraint... but I guess that is a
different issue.
I used the existing dg-require-effective-target check,
stack_protector and added it in a separate line.
ChangeLog.
2014-03-19 Venkataramanan Kumar
Hi Marcus,
On 14 March 2014 19:42, Marcus Shawcroft marcus.shawcr...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Venkat
On 5 February 2014 10:29, Venkataramanan Kumar
venkataramanan.ku...@linaro.org wrote:
Hi Marcus,
+ ldr\\t%x2, %1\;str\\t%x2, %0\;mov\t%x2,0
+ [(set_attr length 12)])
This pattern emits
suggested me to add a new option for this.
ref: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg03358.html
regards,
Venkat.
On 4 February 2014 21:39, Marcus Shawcroft marcus.shawcr...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Venkat,
On 22 January 2014 16:57, Venkataramanan Kumar
venkataramanan.ku...@linaro.org wrote
Can someone review this please.
regards,
Venkat.
On 22 January 2014 22:27, Venkataramanan Kumar
venkataramanan.ku...@linaro.org wrote:
Hi Marcus,
After we changed the frame growing direction (downwards) in Aarch64,
the back-end now generates stack smashing set and test based on
generic code
ping.
On 22 January 2014 22:27, Venkataramanan Kumar
venkataramanan.ku...@linaro.org wrote:
Hi Marcus,
After we changed the frame growing direction (downwards) in Aarch64,
the back-end now generates stack smashing set and test based on
generic code available in GCC.
But most of the ports
x0, x1, x0
cbnzx0, .L7
Please let me know if this change is fine for Aarch64.
2014-01-22 Venkataramanan Kumar venkataramanan.ku...@linaro.org
* config/aarch64/aarch64.md (stack_protect_set, stack_protect_test)
(stack_protect_set_mode, stack_protect_test_mode): Add
Hi Richard,
Pinging for further comments.
regards,
Venkat.
On 27 November 2013 14:24, Venkataramanan Kumar
venkataramanan.ku...@linaro.org wrote:
Hi Richard,
I don't think it's good to have long lists of targets on generic tests.
Can we factor this out into a target-supports option?
I
Hi Richard,
I don't think it's good to have long lists of targets on generic tests.
Can we factor this out into a target-supports option?
I have updated the patch as per your recommendation. Please let me
know if it is fine.
2013-11-26 Venkataramanan Kumar venkataramanan.ku...@linaro.org
for aarch64.
I have posted code snippet here.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg02968.html
ChangeLog:
2013-11-26 Venkataramanan Kumar venkataramanan.ku...@linaro.org
* configure.ac (gcc_cv_libc_provides_tls_ssp): Add test to
check TLS support in target C library
configure .
Any better approach to this since it is specific to Aarch64?
regards,
Venkat.
On 20 November 2013 22:38, Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013, Venkataramanan Kumar wrote:
I would like to see a clear description of what happens with all eight
Hi Joseph,
On 19 November 2013 21:53, Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 04:30:21PM +0530, Venkataramanan Kumar wrote:
This is RFC patch that adds machine descriptions to support stack
smashing protection
Hi Maintainers,
This is RFC patch that adds machine descriptions to support stack
smashing protection in AArch64.
I have written a very simple patch that prints stack set and stack
test as template of instructions.
I had 2 assumptions.
1) For stack_protect_set and stack_protect_test, I
used
that glibc
patches are upstreamed.
2013-10-28 Venkataramanan Kumar venkataramanan.ku...@linaro.org
* config/aarch64/aarch64.h (MCOUNT_NAME): Define.
(NO_PROFILE_COUNTERS): Likewise.
(PROFILE_HOOK): Likewise.
(FUNCTION_PROFILER): Likewise.
* config/aarch64
ping!
On 3 August 2013 23:31, Venkataramanan Kumar
venkataramanan.ku...@linaro.org wrote:
Hi Maintainers,
This patch adds macros to support gprof in Aarch64. The difference
from the previous patch is that the compiler, while generating
mcount routine for an instrumented function, also passes
) RETURN_ADDRESS (0)); \
+ mcount_internal ((u_long) frompc, (u_long) RETURN_ADDRESS (0)); \
}
(-Snip-)
Also in Aarch64 cases__builtin_return_adderess(n) where n0, still be
returning 0 as it was doing before.
If this is Ok I will send the patch to glibc as well.
2013-08-02 Venkataramanan
_builtin_return_address(1), even
when -fomit-frame-pointer is used.
regards,
venkat.
On 29 July 2013 11:57, Andrew Pinski pins...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 3:53 AM, Venkataramanan Kumar
venkataramanan.ku...@linaro.org wrote:
Hi Maintainers,
This patch adds supports to handle
Hi Maintainers,
This patch adds supports to handle return address via. frame pointer.
gcc/ChangeLog
-
2013-07-28 Venkataramanan Kumar venkataramanan.ku...@linaro.org
* config/aarch64/aarch64.c (aarch64_return_addr): Handle returning
address from a frame
Hi Maintainers,
This patch defines some macros that are needed for profile generation
support in Aarch64.
I tested this patch on top of the patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-07/msg01333.html
Regression tested with aarch64-none-elf with V8 foundation model after
re basing to latest
-
2013-05-12 Venkataramanan Kumar venkataramanan.ku...@linaro.org
* config/aarch64/aarch64.c (aarch64_return_addr): Handle returning
address from a frame.
Patch2
--
2013-05-12 Venkataramanan Kumar venkataramanan.ku...@linaro.org
* config/aarch64/aarch64.h
Venkataramanan Kumar venkataramanan.ku...@linaro.org
* config/aarch64/aarch64.h (MCOUNT_NAME): Define.
(NO_PROFILE_COUNTERS): Likewise.
(PROFILE_HOOK): Likewise.
(FUNCTION_PROFILER): Likewise.
* config/aarch64/aarch64.c (aarch64_return_addr): Handle
Hi Maintainers,
The attached patch backports the gcc trunk patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-01/msg00143.html to
ARM/aarch64-4.7-branch branch.
ChangeLog.aarch64
2013-01-27 Venkataramanan Kumar venkataramanan.ku...@linaro.org
Backport from mainline.
2013-01-04
43 matches
Mail list logo
