Thanks Richard, I'll remove UNSPEC_SIN/COS from my patch.
Han
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 3:07 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 12/03/14 22:35, Hán Shěn (沈涵) wrote:
>> ARM build (on chrome) is broken because of duplicate entries in arm.md
>> and unspecs.md. Fixed by removing d
ARM build (on chrome) is broken because of duplicate entries in arm.md
and unspecs.md. Fixed by removing duplication and merge those in
arm.md into unspecs.md.
(We had a similar fix for google/gcc-4_8 here -
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=198650)
Tested by building arm cros
Hi current google/main fails to build for arm because of duplicated
head file entries in gtyp-input.list.
Fixed by removing duplication in macro tm_file. This only affects arm
platform. Tested by successfully build for arm.
Patch below
--- config.gcc.orig 2014-03-11 15:10:26.849602409 -0700
Hi Rong, while building for arm toolchain on chromeos, GCOV_LOCKED is
not defined, which leads to redefinition of cs_all, this is observed
on google/gcc-4_8 branch.
Patch below, tested on chromeos for arm and x86_64 arch.
Ok for google/gcc-4_8 branch?
diff --git a/libgcc/libgcov-driver.c b/libgc
Hi, I'm to backport trunk patch @198547 for pr target/56732 to google
branch google/gcc-4_8.
This patch fixes arm ICE.
Ok for google/gcc-4_8?
[patch attached]
H.
r198547.patch
Description: Binary data
Backport trunk@198344 - another fix to PR rtl-optimization/56847 - to
google/gcc-4_8 branch.
The first fix was trunk@198101 -
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-04/msg01152.html - which was
backported to google/gcc-4_8 as gcc-4_8@198315
Unfortunately, it resulted in some libstdc++ test failur
Updated patch according to Jeff Law's comments (
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-05/msg00038.html )
Thanks,
H.
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Han Shen(沈涵) wrote:
> Thanks.
>
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 2:26 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> On 04/17/2013 02:4
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 04/26/2013 10:45 AM, Han Shen(沈涵) wrote:
>>
>> Hi, I'd like to ping the patch '-fstack-protector-strong':
>>
>> - http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-04/msg00945.html
>>Add a new option &#x
Hi, I'd like to ping the patch '-fstack-protector-strong':
- http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-04/msg00945.html
Add a new option '-fstack-protector-strong' to protect only
stack-smashing-vulnerable functions.
Thanks,
H.
Hi, this patch back port trunk@198101 to fix PR rtl-optimization/56847.
Passed bootstrap and regression test.
Ok for branch google/gcc-4_8?
2013-04-19 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/56847
* lra-constraints.c (process_alt_operands): Discourage alternative
with no
ARM build (on chrome) is broken. This patch fixed the problem. Tested
by building arm cross compiler successfully.
* gcc/config/config.cc: Removed duplicated header files which
causes error in generating gtyp-input.list.
* gcc/config/arm.md: Most of define_c_enum "unspec"
Thanks.
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 2:26 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 04/17/2013 02:49 AM, Han Shen wrote:
>>> Indentation is off (unless both mail clients I tried are clobbering your
>>> patch). I think the GNU coding style prohibits the braces around the
>>> single-statement body of the outer 'f
Hi, I'm to bring up this patch about '-fstack-protector-strong' for trunk.
Background - some times stack-protector is too-simple while
stack-protector-all over-kills, for example, to build one of our core
systems, we forcibly add "-fstack-protector-all" to all compile
commands, which brings big pe
Fix inconsistency between Makefile.am and Makefile.in under libstdc++.
The inconsistency was introduced by
svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/google/gcc-4_7@194664
Since the re-generated Makefile.in has not changed (thus not included
in the patch), this modification should have no impact.
Hi
Hi Ahmad and Dehao, gcc-4_7-mobile branch needs 196555 patch to fix
broken dependency when bootstrapping host compiler for chromeos.
Could you take a look, thanks!
-Han
Patch here >>
diff --git a/gcc/Makefile.in b/gcc/Makefile.in
index c180f31..82b 100644
--- a/gcc/Makefile.in
+++ b/gcc/Make
The merge includes the following 108 CLs from 190426 (excluded) up to
195968 (included) -
195968 195906 195905 195810 195782 195740 195672 195468 195460 195435
195427 195373 195356 195306 195282 195246 195214 195030 194932 194931
194926 194925 194921 194874 194831 194739 194737 194735 194725 19471
Hi Ahmad and Luis, I'd like you to do a code review.
Temporarily adds below failures to baseline. Needs to be removed after
a thorough analysis/fix.
Patch below -
--- /dev/null 2012-11-30 16:08:50.372341021 -0800
+++ contrib/testsuite-management/i686-pc-linux-gnu 2012-12-13
10:30:39.496677271 -0
bb.two;
+ bb.three = bb.one + bb.two + bb.three;
+}
+ return bb.three;
+}
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "stack_chk_fail" 10 } } */
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Carrot Wei wrote:
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Han Shen(沈涵)
> Date: Thu,
Hi, the google/gcc-main fails to linking anything (on x86-generic chromeos).
By looking into specs file, it seems that 'link_emulation' section is
missing in specs.
The problem is in config/i386/linux.h, SUBTARGET_EXTRA_SPECS (which is
not empty for chrome x86-generic) is overridden by
"LINUX_GRT
Hi, ping, could any one take a look at this patch? Thanks,
-Han
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm curious about the status of this patch:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-06/msg00974.html
>
> Chrome OS uses this, and the Ubuntu Security Team has expressed
>
Hi Ahmad, I'd like you to do a code review, which backports the
following patch (r190600) from google/gcc-4_7.
2012-08-22 Han Shen
Fixed the problem that LINUX_GRTE_EXTRA_SPECS overrides
SUBTARGET_EXTRA_SPECS by prepending LINUX_GRTE_EXTRA_SPECS to
SUBTARGET_EXTRA_SPECS
Hi Jing, the crosstool test passed. You can start the review, thanks! -Han
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Han Shen(沈涵) wrote:
> Hi Jing, ping?
>
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Han Shen(沈涵) wrote:
>> Hi, the google/gcc-4_7 fails to linking anything (on x86-generic), by
Hi Jing, ping?
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Han Shen(沈涵) wrote:
> Hi, the google/gcc-4_7 fails to linking anything (on x86-generic), by
> looking into specs file, it seems that 'link_emulation' section is
> missing in specs.
>
> The problem is in config/i386/linux
Hi Carrot, could you take a look at this patch? Thanks!
The modification is in upstream trunk patch revision - 186859.
The same patch has been back ported to google/gcc-4_6
(http://codereview.appspot.com/6206055/), this is to apply on
google/gcc-4_7
Regards,
-Han
2012-08-13 Han Shen
Hi, the google/gcc-4_7 fails to linking anything (on x86-generic), by
looking into specs file, it seems that 'link_emulation' section is
missing in specs.
The problem is in config/i386/linux.h, SUBTARGET_EXTRA_SPECS (which is
not empty for chrome x86-generic) is overridden by
"LINUX_GRTE_EXTRA_SPE
Hi,
This is to port the patch from google/main to trunk, which provides a new stack
protection option - "fstack-protector-strong".
Previous review for google trunk is here -
http://codereview.appspot.com/5461043
Status - it has been used in google/main for 2 quarters, building the whole
chromium
Hi, ok for approval?
Thanks,
-Han
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 4:49 PM, wrote:
> On 2012/05/16 23:30:28, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
>> On 12-05-16 19:22 , mailto:jin...@google.com wrote:
>> > In my opinion, gcc/ChangeLog is for upstream commits only.
>> > It is fine that you want to port upstream gcc/Ch
Hi Jing, thanks!
The SUBTARGET_EXTRA_SPECS is defined in config/i386/gnu-user.h
In "linux.h", the original value of "SUBTARGET_EXTRA_SPECS" is
overwritten by LINUX_GRTE_EXTRA_SPECS, which is not right! Instead,
"SUBTARGET_EXTRA_SPECS" and "LINUX_GRTE_EXTRA_SPECS" must be
concatenated.
For every t
Hi, ping?
Could someone take a look at this patch, it has already been reviewed
several rounds. I'm to submit it to gcc trunk.
Thanks,
-Han
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 9:41 PM, wrote:
>
> ok for google branches with the above changes. Please continue to seek
> upstream approval.
>
> David
>
>
> htt
Hi, David and Rong, thanks a lot! Modified code uploaded as patch 8
and is also included at the end of email body.
Ref - http://codereview.appspot.com/5461043
Regards,
-Han
== Patch start
diff --git a/gcc/cfgexpand.c b/gcc/cfgexpand.c
index 6d31e90..131c1b9 100644
--- a/gcc/cfgexpand.c
+++ b
Another gentle ping?
-Han
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Han Shen(沈涵) wrote:
> Hi, all, it's been a long time, I've slightly modified my code -
> TREE_ADDRESSABLE is only applied when TREE_CODE is VAR_DECL, and it's
> combined with test for arrays/struct-union-contain-
LGTM
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 3:16 PM, wrote:
>
> Reviewers: xur, shenhan, jingyu,
>
> Message:
> This merges in the fix for ICE when using PGO when building Chrome.
>
>
>
> Please review this at http://codereview.appspot.com/5541046/
>
> Affected files:
> M .
> M gcc/ChangeLog.google-4_
+
+int
+global2 (struct BB* pbb);
+
+/* Address taken on struct. */
+int
+foo10 ()
+{
+ struct BB bb;
+ int i;
+ bb.one = global2 (&bb);
+ for (i = 0; i < 10; ++i)
+{
+ bb.two = bb.one + bb.two;
+ bb.three = bb.one + bb.two + bb.three;
+}
+ return bb.three;
+}
+
+/* {
LGTM++
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 8:22 PM, wrote:
>
> Adding shenhan.
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/5501051/
Hi, further comments? Or ok for submit?
And as suggested by Diego, I'd like to make it upstream and google branch.
Thanks,
-Han
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Han Shen(沈涵) wrote:
> Hi, Jakub, thanks! Fixed!
>
> Hi, Andrew, it's good suggestion. Done. Also modified foo10.
&
ee;
+}
+ return bb.three;
+}
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "stack_chk_fail" 10 } } */
-Han
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Han Shen(沈涵) wrote:
>> +/* Address taken on struct
e = bb.one + bb.two + bb.three;
+}
+ return bb.three;
+}
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "stack_chk_fail" 10 } } */
=
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 11:05:42AM -0800, Han Shen(沈涵) wrote:
>> --- a/gcc/cf
Hi, Andrew and Richard, check via referenced vars is much easier, thanks!
Updated patches attached at EOM, also uploaded to
http://codereview.appspot.com/5461043
Hi, Diego, that's good suggestion. I'm glad to send this for trunk at
the next stage 1.
-Han
Updated patches
diff --
Hi, Joseph, thanks!
Yeah, I see where the problem is - I posted all these
(patchset,Changelog, rationale and previous gcc-patches discussion.)
on http://codereview.appspot.com/5394041
So in addition to that, I include them all here
==
This is a follow up for issue
Hi, Joseph, thanks!
ChangeLog entries added to the issue description.
ChangeLog
* Makefile.in (GPLUSPLUS_INCLUDE_DIR_ADD_SYSROOT): add a macro
definition to compile command.
* cppdefault.c (GPLUSPLUS_INCLUDE_DIR_ADD_SYSROOT): replace hard
coded "add_sysroot" field
40 matches
Mail list logo
