On 18 September 2014 11:15, James Greenhalgh james.greenha...@arm.com wrote:
gcc/
2014-09-18 James Greenhalgh james.greenha...@arm.com
* config/aarch64/aarch64.md (stack_protect_test_mode): Mark
scratch register as an output to placate register renaming.
gcc/testsuite/
On 17 September 2014 15:43, James Greenhalgh james.greenha...@arm.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 09:30:31AM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
=r is correct for an early-clobbered scratch.
R.
In that case...
How is the attached patch for trunk? I've bootstrapped it on AArch64
with
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 09:18:53AM +0100, Marcus Shawcroft wrote:
gcc/testsuite/
2014-09-15 James Greenhalgh james.greenha...@arm.com
* gcc.target/aarch64/stack_protector_set_1.c: New.
* gcc.target/aarch64/stack_protector_set_2.c: Likewise.
I agree with Andrew,
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 03:50:55PM +0100, pins...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 17, 2014, at 7:43 AM, James Greenhalgh james.greenha...@arm.com
wrote:
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 09:30:31AM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
=r is correct for an early-clobbered scratch.
R.
In that
Am 17.09.2014 um 15:14 schrieb Matthias Klose:
Am 17.09.2014 um 00:03 schrieb James Greenhalgh:
If you have any other suggestions, or if =r is actually correct and
I am misreading the documentation please let me know.
with this patch I see a lot of ICEs in the testsuite for test cases built
On 16/09/14 23:03, James Greenhalgh wrote:
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 10:36:08PM +0100, Andrew Pinski 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 just added =r
Am 17.09.2014 um 00:03 schrieb James Greenhalgh:
If you have any other suggestions, or if =r is actually correct and
I am misreading the documentation please let me know.
with this patch I see a lot of ICEs in the testsuite for test cases built with
-O3 (and a build defaulting to
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 09:30:31AM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
=r is correct for an early-clobbered scratch.
R.
In that case...
How is the attached patch for trunk? I've bootstrapped it on AArch64
with -fstack-protector-strong and -frename-registers in the BOOT_CFLAGS
without seeing any
On Sep 17, 2014, at 7:43 AM, James Greenhalgh james.greenha...@arm.com
wrote:
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 09:30:31AM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
=r is correct for an early-clobbered scratch.
R.
In that case...
How is the attached patch for trunk? I've bootstrapped it on AArch64
Am 17.09.2014 um 15:14 schrieb Matthias Klose:
Am 17.09.2014 um 00:03 schrieb James Greenhalgh:
If you have any other suggestions, or if =r is actually correct and
I am misreading the documentation please let me know.
with this patch I see a lot of ICEs in the testsuite for test cases built
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 just added =r and retested it.
I had a very similar patch to this sitting in my local tree. However,
I am surprised you
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for pointing that.
I thought modifier is enough to say that operand is early
clobbered and so GCC will use a different register and it will not
allocate same register that was given to a input operand.
Lookign at the the bug it looks like = is needed for the clobber,
so that
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 10:36:08PM +0100, Andrew Pinski 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 just added =r and retested it.
I had a very similar
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 3:03 PM, James Greenhalgh
james.greenha...@arm.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 10:36:08PM +0100, Andrew Pinski 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
Hi Marcus,
I up streamed the changes to trunk.
There is no support for stack protection in FSF GCC 4.9 branch yet.
So I need to back port r209712 and this change together.
regards,
Venkat.
On 5 September 2014 21:17, Marcus Shawcroft marcus.shawcr...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 September 2014
On 8 September 2014 16:36, Venkataramanan Kumar
venkataramanan.ku...@linaro.org wrote:
Hi Marcus,
I up streamed the changes to trunk.
There is no support for stack protection in FSF GCC 4.9 branch yet.
Quite right, ignore my back port request.
Cheers
/Marcus
On 4 September 2014 19:19, 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
*
Hi Maintainers,
Below patch adds register constraint r for destination operand in
stack_protect_test pattern.
We need a general register here and adding r will avoid vector
register getting allocated.
regression tested on aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu.
Ok for trunk?
regards,
Venkat.
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
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 08:42:31AM +0100, Venkataramanan Kumar wrote:
Hi maintainers,
I just added =r and retested it.
I had a very similar patch to this sitting in my local tree. However,
I am surprised you have left operand 3 as an output operand. In my tree
I had marked operand 3 as r.
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 and
21 matches
Mail list logo
