https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101324
--- Comment #27 from Peter Bergner ---
FYI, as part of the work for PR114759, I have come to the conclusion that
disabling shrink-wrapping in the presence of -mrop-protect is a big hammer and
we shouldn't really need to do that. I plan on "fixi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101324
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101324
--- Comment #25 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Peter Bergner
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c56c398c39f6195c3d158f02514c33b7da73ebc2
commit r11-9560-gc56c398c39f6195c3d158f02514c33b7da73ebc2
Author: Martin Liska
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101324
--- Comment #24 from Raoni Fassina Firmino ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #21)
> Fixed on trunk.
I tested gcc trunk with glibc master and I confirm that it fix the problem with
__memmove_ppc. I tested both running glibc check with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101324
--- Comment #23 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #22)
> So this is also broken in GCC11, so I'm testing the simple backport.
Regression testing of the backport was clean. Just need approval for the
backport.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101324
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||11.0
Target Milestone|12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101324
--- Comment #21 from Peter Bergner ---
Fixed on trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101324
--- Comment #20 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Peter Bergner :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cff7879a381d3f5ed6556206896e6a6229800167
commit r12-5781-gcff7879a381d3f5ed6556206896e6a6229800167
Author: Martin Liska
Date: F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101324
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101324
--- Comment #18 from Peter Bergner ---
Namely this:
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
index 1c8b1ebb86e..0d9a3ba67ce 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
+++ b/gcc/testsuite
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101324
--- Comment #17 from Peter Bergner ---
Here's a compile time only test case that correctly FAILs using the unpatched
compiler and passes using the patched compiler (requires a small change to
target-supports.exp to add the rop_ok test):
/* { dg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101324
--- Comment #16 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #15)
> (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #14)
> > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #13)
> > > Please test the patch on a power10 machine, thanks.
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101324
--- Comment #15 from Segher Boessenkool ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #14)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #13)
> > Created attachment 51668 [details]
> > Patch candidate
> >
> > Please test the patch on a power10 machine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101324
--- Comment #14 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #13)
> Created attachment 51668 [details]
> Patch candidate
>
> Please test the patch on a power10 machine, thanks.
I'll kick it off now. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101324
--- Comment #13 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 51668
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51668&action=edit
Patch candidate
Please test the patch on a power10 machine, thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101324
--- Comment #12 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #10)
> All right, I have a patch candidate. Would it be possible to prepare a GCC
> test-suite test-case?
Forgot to mention, if you want me to test your patch, I can
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101324
--- Comment #11 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #10)
> (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #8)
> > FYI, here's a smaller test case that still shows the issue with today's
> > trunk:
> >
> > extern void foo (voi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101324
--- Comment #10 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #8)
> FYI, here's a smaller test case that still shows the issue with today's
> trunk:
>
> extern void foo (void);
> long int
> __attribute__ ((__optimize__ ("-fno-tr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101324
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #9 from Martin Lišk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101324
--- Comment #8 from Peter Bergner ---
FYI, here's a smaller test case that still shows the issue with today's trunk:
extern void foo (void);
long int
__attribute__ ((__optimize__ ("-fno-tree-loop-distribute-patterns")))
__memmove_ppc (long int
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101324
--- Comment #7 from Peter Bergner ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> Heh, another example of __attribute__((optimize("..."))) problem:
>
> __attribute__ ((__optimize__ ("-fno-tree-loop-distribute-patterns")))
> __memmove_ppc ( voi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101324
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101324
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |12.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101324
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101324
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|mliska at suse dot cz |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
Ev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101324
Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51105|0 |1
is obsolete
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101324
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mliska at suse dot cz
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101324
--- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool ---
So, even if I use
-fno-shrink-wrap
and, although rs6000.c has anyway
/* If we are inserting ROP-protect instructions, disable shrink wrap. */
if (rs6000_rop_protect)
flag_shrink_wrap = 0;
we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101324
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Could you attach something that is a valid input to the compiler? Something
that does not include the preprocessor directives... did you use -dM?
Don't :-)
(I can reproduce with this code, but there
29 matches
Mail list logo
