Attention everyone,
I've just committed a patch to move MEMMODE_* macros and enum memmodel
definitions from coretypes.h to memmodel.h. As a consequence, people who include
emit-rtl.h anywhere or include tm_p.h in the middle end need to include
memmodel.h beforehand. This is because emit-rtl.h
Sorry my apologies. I see that Nathan already fixed it. Must have slipped in
during a conflict resolution during one of the many rebase between testing and
commit approval.
Best regards,
Thomas
On 05/05/17 18:27, Martin Sebor wrote:
I see the following error during bootstrap on x86_64 config
Hi,
TL;DR: where to tell dejagnu about the compiler to use for building testglue?
== context ==
I've just found out that testglue.c is built using the compiler in PATH when
doing out of tree testing rather than using the one specified by GCC_UNDER_TEST
(or other *_UNDER_TEST). This is because
Hi Joseph,
On 06/12/17 17:53, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Wed, 6 Dec 2017, Thomas Preudhomme wrote:
== problem ==
I'm not sure where is the proper place to fix this. Obviously setting
CC_FOR_TARGET in contrib/test_installed or when calling runtest manually would
work but I wonder if this
On 07/12/17 15:17, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Thu, 7 Dec 2017, Thomas Preudhomme wrote:
That seems to go counter to the --prefix option of contrib/test_installed
which is meant to test a compiler at an arbitrary path. This suggest the
compiler is not expected to be in PATH or in any dejagnu
Hi Alexander,
As mentioned in [1], Arm Cortex-R52 can have either single precision or double
precision + Neon. This is reflected in GCC 8 by -mcpu=cortex-r52 defaulting to
the latter (double precision + Neon) and -mcpu=cortex-r52+nofp.dp giving you the
former (single precision).
[1] https://
n Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Thomas Preudhomme
wrote:
Hi Alexander,
As mentioned in [1], Arm Cortex-R52 can have either single precision or
double precision + Neon. This is reflected in GCC 8 by -mcpu=cortex-r52
defaulting to the latter (double precision + Neon) and
-mcpu=cortex-r52+nofp.dp
y why ARMv8-R is not listed in t-rmprofile multilib ?
Alex
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 9:25 PM, Thomas Preudhomme
wrote:
That or just use -mfpu=auto (as in -mcpu=cortex-r52 -mfpu=auto
-mfloat-abi=(softfp|hard)).
Best regards,
Thomas
On 26/01/18 16:44, Alexander Fedotov wrote:
Thank you Thomas
Hi,
For stack protector to be robust, at no point in time the guard against
which the canari is compared must be spilled to the stack. This is achieved
by having dedicated insn pattern for setting the canari and comparing it
against the guard which doesn't reflect at RTL what is happening. However
Hi there,
Any objection to filing a CVE for that?
Best regards,
Thomas
On 19 April 2018 at 18:17, Thomas Preudhomme
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> For stack protector to be robust, at no point in time the guard against
> which the canari is compared must be spilled to the stack. This is a
It's not the canari which is spilled in this case, but the address to the
canari. Which means an attacker could make it point to something else than
the real canari.
On 27 April 2018 at 13:16, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 06:17:26PM +0100, Thomas Preudhomme wrote:
n 27 April 2018 at 13:22, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 01:17:50PM +0100, Thomas Preudhomme wrote:
> > It's not the canari which is spilled in this case, but the address to the
> > canari. Which means an attacker could make it point to something else
> than
&g
ing a CVE for that issue?
Best regards,
Thomas
On 27 April 2018 at 14:38, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 02:31:25PM +0100, Thomas Preudhomme wrote:
> > On x86 yes, it's actually done in the same instruction that's doing the
> > comparison if I'm not
[Please CC me as I'm not subscribed to this list]
Hi there,
I'm currently working on adding a switch to check whether public
function involve float parameters or return values. Such a check would
be useful for people trying to write code that is compatible with both
base standard (softfloat)
Le 2014-03-04 19:14, Matthew Fortune a écrit :
Hi Thomas,
Hi Matthew,
Do you particularly need a switch for this? You could view this as
simply relaxing the ABI requirements of a module, a switch would only
serve to enforce the need for a compatible ABI and error if not. If
you build somethi
15 matches
Mail list logo
