Hello, On Wed, 4 Dec 2019, Herman ten Brugge wrote:
> I think I have a working patch now. See attachment. > The code runs on i386 and x86_64 on linux for large projects I have. > > I found some bugs when updating the i386 code. > The bugs are in the testcases in the patch. > The test/boundtest.c code works for both targets. > See below for the main changes. > > I probably need some feedback now. I'll try to look at it over the weekend. Ciao, Michael. > > Regards, > > Herman > > On 2019-12-02 22:46, Herman ten Brugge wrote: > > Little updated patch. Still needs more work. > > > > Regards, > > > > Herman > > > > On 2019-12-02 18:24, Herman ten Brugge wrote: > >> Hello, > >> > >> I did some debugging with bouds-checking and came up with attached patch. > >> I seriously doubt any one did use bounds checking in a large project > >> before. > >> > >> Currently I can use this now in a large multi threaded project. It still > >> needs some more testing so do not apply the patch yet. > >> > >> I disabled some errors. For example if a bounded pointer is not found I > >> give no error. I also relaxed printing free errors. > >> There were some off by 1 errors in lib/bcheck.c and I needed to make the > >> code thread safe. > >> I used the patch to not link in libtcc1.a in shared objects when bounds > >> checking so I have only one memory pool. > >> This has to be documented because you cannot use this with dlopen for > >> example. > >> I also added the pthread library when bounds checking so it is now multi > >> threaded. > >> I found another problem with nocode_wanted when using sizeof(). > >> Also the push/pop trick needed to push some more registers when more > >> parameters are passed in registers. > >> > >> I probably forget to mention a lot a other changes. See the patch. > >> > >> I only tested this on linux x86_64. There are for sure problems on other > >> targets. > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Herman > >> > >> > >> On 2019-11-28 17:41, Michael Matz wrote: > >>> Hello again, > >>> > >>> but to maybe be a bit more constructive: > >>> > >>> On Thu, 28 Nov 2019, Michael Matz wrote: > >>> > >>>>> I fixed this with some push/pop trickery. > >>> I see, yeah, expanding calls during calls is broken as gfunc_call in the > >>> generators doesn't generally leave a trace in vtop[] which registers are > >>> currently holding values. I think you only need so push/pop si/di, as > >>> cx/dx aren't used intentionally during reg-param setup. > >>> > >>> (I think i386-gen.c has a simila bug with fastcall functions). > >>> > >>>>> This probably could be > >>>>> improved. I have now added a minimum patch so bounds checking works a > >>>>> little bit. We need still to fix the shared lib reloc problems and the > >>>>> malloc/free hooks. > >>>> Do we? Can we perhaps also simply declare bounds checking to work only > >>>> with the main executable? Or remove that whole feature altogether? > >>> And perhaps another compromise: only conditionally enable tracking of > >>> locals: Invent a new cmdline option (say, '-bb'), which sets > >>> do_bounds_checking to 2. And only if it's > 1 you would also track > >>> locals, whereas with == 1 you would only track arrays and structs. > >>> > >>> Your decision, I think you can push this patch either with that change, or > >>> without (but try to remove cx/dx from the push/pop). It doesn't make tccs > >>> source code larger or uglier in any meaningful way, but does fix practical > >>> bugs. > >>> > >>> > >>> Ciao, > >>> Michael. > >> > > > > >
_______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
