Snapshot gcc-4.9-2015 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.9-2015/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.9 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
Hi,
The current implementation of -fstack-protector for x86 defaults to
using a TLS guard, unless the target in question is Android, in which
case it falls back on using a global guard. Code from
config/i386/i386.c line 5512 or thereabouts:
/* Handle stack protector */
if (!opts_set->x_ix86_s
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On 11 November 2015 at 16:03, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Nov 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >
> >> On 10 November 2015 at 20:11, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 9 Nov 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 4 Novembe
On 11 November 2015 at 16:03, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 10 November 2015 at 20:11, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Mon, 9 Nov 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 4 November 2015 at 20:35, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Btw, di
On Wed, 11 Nov 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On 10 November 2015 at 20:11, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Nov 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >
> >> On 4 November 2015 at 20:35, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Btw, did you investigate code gen differences on x86_64/i586? That
>
On 10 November 2015 at 20:11, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 4 November 2015 at 20:35, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >
>> > Btw, did you investigate code gen differences on x86_64/i586? That
>> > target expands all divisions/modulo ops via divmod, relyi
On 11/9/2015 2:03 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 09/11/15 09:57, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 07/11/15 09:23, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 11:50:40PM -0800, David Wohlferd wrote:
The same goes for some constraints and almost all output modifiers.
Are you suggesting more d
On 11/9/2015 1:52 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/07/2015 12:50 AM, David Wohlferd wrote:
- Starting with 'modifiers', "=+&" and (reluctantly) "%" seem reasonable
for inline asm. But both "#*" seem sketchy.
Right. =+& are no-brainer yes, as are the constants 0-9. % is
probably OK as well.
#* ar
