On 05/22/2013 12:43 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Changing frame grows upward into frame grows downward shouldn't be that
> hard, see e.g. rs6000 port, where
> #define FRAME_GROWS_DOWNWARD (flag_stack_protect != 0 || flag_asan != 0)
> and grep the port where it uses FRAME_GROWS_DOWNWARD.
> Basically y
> Not any longer, 4.9 has AB edges to setjmp from longjmp or potential longjmp
> callers.
And all 4.x (x >= 1) compilers have AB edges to (lowered) __builtin_setjmp
from __builtin_longjmp or potential __builtin_longjmp callers.
--
Eric Botcazou
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 09:52:35AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> lot of code to maintain normal EH + TM edges. We don't even bother
> maintaining
> edges for setjmp/longjmp.
Not any longer, 4.9 has AB edges to setjmp from longjmp or potential longjmp
callers.
Jakub
On 05/22/2013 02:23 AM, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> Mmmh ok. Where do you think the other approach (clobber in abort code +
> abnormal edge) could break?
It's mostly about the infrastructure of maintaining the edges. It's quite a
lot of code to maintain normal EH + TM edges. We don't even bother
On Wed, 2013-05-22 at 11:03 +0200, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> On 21/05/13 16:28, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-05-21 at 14:40 +0200, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> > You could also start with supporting s390 HTM through the transactional
> > language constructs we already support (__transaction_at
On 21/05/13 20:01, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 05/21/2013 05:40 AM, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm currently implementing support for hardware transactional memory
>> in the S/390 backend and ran into a problem with saving and restoring
>> the floating point registers.
>>
>> On S/390 the
On 21/05/13 16:28, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-05-21 at 14:40 +0200, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> You could also start with supporting s390 HTM through the transactional
> language constructs we already support (__transaction_atomic etc.) and
> libitm. The advantage would be that you can reus
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:25:18AM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
> > > Then arises a runtime problem: aarch64's frame grows upward which is
> > > not supported: how long would it take to develop this support if at
> > > all possible?
> >
> > Better do what all other targets that want to suppo
[resending in plain text mode; arghh]
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Konstantin Serebryany
wrote:
> Hi Christophe,
>
> We would love to see the aarch64-specific changes in upstream repo
> (see https://code.google.com/p/address-sanitizer/wiki/HowToBuild).
> Once the changes are in the upstream
