Backporting gcc_qsort

2018-09-28 Thread Cory Fields
were: r260216: Introduce gcc_qsort r260222: gcc_qsort: avoid oversized memcpy temporaries r262092: gcc_qsort: avoid overlapping memcpy (PR 86311) r264065: qsort_chk: call from gcc_qsort instead of wrapping it [0]: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-05/msg00479.html Regards, Cory Fields

Re: Backporting gcc_qsort

2018-10-01 Thread Cory Fields
Understood. Thank you for the explanations. I'll just plan to apply the patches locally as well. Regards, Cory On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 11:18 AM Alexander Monakov wrote: > > On Mon, 1 Oct 2018, Jeff Law wrote: > > To add a bit more context for Cory. > > > > Generally backports are limited to fixin

Unstable build/host qsorts causing differing generated target code

2018-01-12 Thread Cory Fields
erally, many of these unstable sorts remain, and fixing them up individually seems futile. Before working on this further, I'm wondering if it makes sense to pull a qsort into libiberty and poison the libc function. That way if unstable sorts do sneak in, at least they would be consistently unsta

Re: Unstable build/host qsorts causing differing generated target code

2018-01-12 Thread Cory Fields
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 01/12/2018 11:26 AM, Cory Fields wrote: >> Quick disclaimer: I'm 100% new to GCC code and the dev process, so >> there are bound to be some faulty assumptions below. >> >> I recently worked on a build of gcc,

Re: Unstable build/host qsorts causing differing generated target code

2018-01-12 Thread Cory Fields
Yes, this is the issue that I ran into. I took the check further by asserting that if cmp(A, B) == 0, memcmp(A, B) == 0 as well. But that''s tricky because the structure may contain data that differs from A to B, but ultimately isn't used after the sort. So it leads to a bunch of false-ish-positiv

-static-pie and -static -pie

2018-01-30 Thread Cory Fields
Hi list I'm playing with -static-pie and musl, which seems to be in good shape for 8.0.0. Nice work :) However, the fact that "gcc -static -pie" and "gcc -static-pie" produce different results is very unexpected. I understand the case for the new link-type, but merging the options when possible w

Re: -static-pie and -static -pie

2018-01-30 Thread Cory Fields
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:35 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Cory Fields wrote: >> Hi list >> >> I'm playing with -static-pie and musl, which seems to be in good shape >> for 8.0.0. Nice work :) >> >> However, the fact

Re: -static-pie and -static -pie

2018-01-30 Thread Cory Fields
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 2:14 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:07 AM, Cory Fields wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:35 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Cory Fields wrote: >>>> Hi list >>>> >>>> I

Re: -static-pie and -static -pie

2018-01-31 Thread Cory Fields
atic and -pie and pass along only -static-pie? Or forward them all along, and fix the specs which look for static before static-pie ? Regards, Cory On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 2:36 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:18 AM, Cory Fields wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 2:14 PM