Hi Marcus,
On 14 March 2014 19:42, Marcus Shawcroft marcus.shawcr...@gmail.com wrote:
Do we need a new effective target test, why is the existing
fstack_protector not appropriate?
stack_protector does a run time test. It failed in cross compilation
environment and these are compile only
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 an
On 19 March 2014 17:11, Venkataramanan Kumar
venkataramanan.ku...@linaro.org wrote:
I have incorporated your review comments and split the patch into two.
The first patch attached here contains Aarch64 machine descriptions
for the stack protect patterns.
ChangeLog.
2014-03-19
On 19 March 2014 17:18, Venkataramanan Kumar
venkataramanan.ku...@linaro.org wrote:
I used the existing dg-require-effective-target check,
stack_protector and added it in a separate line.
ChangeLog.
2014-03-19 Venkataramanan Kumar venkataramanan.ku...@linaro.org
*
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:05 AM, Andrew Pinski pins...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:29 AM, 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 an opaque sequence of
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 an opaque sequence of instructions that cannot be
scheduled, is that necessary? Can we not
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:29 AM, 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 an opaque sequence of instructions that cannot be
scheduled, is that necessary? Can we not expand
Hi Marcus,
+ ldr\\t%x2, %1\;str\\t%x2, %0\;mov\t%x2,0
+ [(set_attr length 12)])
This pattern emits an opaque sequence of instructions that cannot be
scheduled, is that necessary? Can we not expand individual
instructions or at least split ?
Almost all the ports emits a template of
Hi Venkat,
On 22 January 2014 16:57, 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
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
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 (i386, spu, rs6000, s390, sh, sparc, tilepro and
tilegx) define machine descriptions using standard
12 matches
Mail list logo
