This is a multipart message in MIME format.
Michael Ackermann via Tinycc-devel <[email protected]> wrote: > Now, and this could be relevant to tinycc-devel, dont' ask me how i arrived at > this in desperate need for some workaround again, see the following patch; > when i've added some NOPs into empty function dummies the kernel panics > in conjunction with the re-implemented random_scrandom.c/scrandom.c vanished:
this doesn't fix the bug, some issue on the stack remains > > /* > * linux-2.4.37/drivers/char/random_scrandom.c to replace random.c > * > https://codeberg.org/aggi/linux-tcc/commit/139f6824b57fb186ab8fcdb624f801194e1dda15 > */ > void add_keyboard_randomness(unsigned char scancode) { > + > + int nop = 0; > } > > Which raises a suspicion, maybe tinycc does some dead-code elimination no > adding some NOP into empty function dummies affects symbols linked into > kernel? they're not NOPs, adding a variable there affects the stack adding a "int nop = 0;" is misleading - this changes the stack pointer compared to what it would have been > I haven't the slightest clue again, but i could confirm with some certainty if you want to learn about this, feel free to use some reverse-engineering tools for your aid - see attachments just looking at the C code isn't going to give you the information that you require for learning about this > Anyway, i've deployed the tinycc-driven distribution into production as > my main development host regardless, and entire userspace seems sufficiently interesting, please keep us updated > stable (mutt, irc, lighttpd, ssh, nfs, tor-proxy, can't test all 500 builds > individually, it's up and running for days and weeks). > Which means, other than the somewhat annoying linux-tcc kernel bugs confirmed > for being related to compilation/linking with tinycc the whole thing is > approaching a release-tag made for upload. good > Otherwise i've not made any progress when contacting various employers, > universities etc. which complicates the situation. I'm wondering how you phrase those requests, perhaps you should package what you're selling a little differently according to your audience (i.e. someone who d.g.a.f about that apart from surviving another day at work) -- more details on attachments: - the DWARF format is more usable than STABS with radare2 and rizin - it seems like the tcc DWARF output is not quite there yet for r2 - those source code annotations are misleading - tcc has an 'optimize' flag, which has an effect when its value is greater than 0 - i.e. -O0 disables them, -Os, -O1, -O2 lead to the same effect - feel free to confirm the lack of "dead code elimination" by disabling the debug output option and enabling the tiny bit of optimization that is available
_______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
