2021 at 7:08 PM Fāng-ruì Sòng
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 6:57 PM H.J. Lu
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at
On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 9:55 AM Martin Jambor wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Nov 19 2021, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Nov 12 2021, Martin Jambor wrote:
> >> > > Hi,
> >> > >
> >> > > using -fno-semantic-interposition has been reported by various people
> >> > > to bring about c
On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 7:05 PM H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 6:38 PM Hongtao Liu wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 5:53 AM H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > The v3 patch was posted at
> > >
> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-July/57
On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 7:33 PM H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 11, 2021 at 10:44 AM H.J. Lu wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 9:54 AM H.J. Lu wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 7:02 AM H.J. Lu wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 12:56 PM H.J. Lu wrote:
> >
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 11:30 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Fāng-ruì Sòng:
>
> > PING^3
>
> I think the core issue with this patch is like this:
>
> * I do not want to commit glibc to a public API that disallows future
> changes to the way we allocate static TLS. While static TLS objects
> c
On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 6:43 AM Richard Purdie via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2021-12-02 at 20:04 -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> >
> > On 10/28/2021 10:39 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2021-10-28 at 08:51 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > > > On 10/27/2021 2:05 PM, Richard Purdie via Gcc-patches w
6:57 PM H.J. Lu wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:16 AM Uros Bizjak
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 8:20
On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 12:37 PM Fāng-ruì Sòng wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 5:13 PM Fangrui Song wrote:
> >
> > On 2021-10-06, Fangrui Song wrote:
> > >On 2021-09-27, Fangrui Song wrote:
> > >>On 2021-09-27, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > >>>* Fangrui Song:
> > >>>
> > Sanitizer runtimes nee
On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 5:13 PM Fangrui Song wrote:
>
> On 2021-10-06, Fangrui Song wrote:
> >On 2021-09-27, Fangrui Song wrote:
> >>On 2021-09-27, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >>>* Fangrui Song:
> >>>
> Sanitizer runtimes need static TLS boundaries for a variety of use cases.
>
> * asan/h
On 2021-10-12, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 09:21:21AM -0700, Fāng-ruì Sòng wrote:
> > An output constraint takes a lvalue. While GCC happily strips the
> > incorrect lvalue to rvalue conversion, Clang rejects the code by default:
> >
> > error: invalid use of a cast in a inl
On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 10:03 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Fangrui Song:
>
> > An output constraint takes a lvalue. While GCC happily strips the
> > incorrect lvalue to rvalue conversion, Clang rejects the code by default:
> >
> > error: invalid use of a cast in a inline asm context requirin
gt; > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 7:08 PM Fāng-ruì Sòng
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 6:57 PM H.J. Lu wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:16 AM Uros
> > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:16 AM Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 8:20 PM Fāng-ruì Sòng via Gcc-patches
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > PING^5
> > > > >
On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 7:08 PM Fāng-ruì Sòng wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 6:57 PM H.J. Lu wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:16 AM Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 8:20 PM Fāng-ruì Sòng via Gcc-patches
> > > wrot
On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 6:57 PM H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:16 AM Uros Bizjak wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 8:20 PM Fāng-ruì Sòng via Gcc-patches
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > PING^5 https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021
PING^5 https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-May/570139.html
On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 12:11 PM Fāng-ruì Sòng wrote:
>
> PING^4 https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-May/570139.html
>
> One major design goal of PIE was to avoid copy relocations.
> The original patch for GCC 5 cause
PING^4 https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-May/570139.html
One major design goal of PIE was to avoid copy relocations.
The original patch for GCC 5 caused problems for many years.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 11:54 PM Fāng-ruì Sòng wrote:
> PING^3 https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches
PING^3 https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-May/570139.html
On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 3:04 PM Fāng-ruì Sòng wrote:
>
> PING^2 https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-May/570139.html
>
> On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 9:43 AM Fāng-ruì Sòng wrote:
> >
> > Ping https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/
> diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
> index cff26909292..7dee311051d 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
> +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
> @@ -10312,13 +10312,17 @@ darwin_local_data_pic (rtx disp)
> }
>
> /* True if the function symbol operand X should be loaded from
PING^2 https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-May/570139.html
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 9:43 AM Fāng-ruì Sòng wrote:
>
> Ping https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-May/570139.html
>
> On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 8:29 PM Fangrui Song wrote:
> >
> > This was introduced in 2014-12 to use
Ping https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-May/570139.html
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 8:29 PM Fangrui Song wrote:
>
> This was introduced in 2014-12 to use local binding for external symbols
> for -fPIE. Now that we have H.J. Lu's GOTPCRELX for years which mostly
> nullify the benefit of HA
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 5:45 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> PING
>
> May I please ping the patch, it's waiting here for a review
> for quite some time.
>
> Thanks,
> Martin
Ping. I think Martin LGTMed this patch and was waiting for a
maintainer to merge it
> On 7/23/20 12:17 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 12:16 AM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 5:50 PM Fangrui Song wrote:
> >
> > On 2020-05-13, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > >> Did I mention I dislike -fsplit-dwarf? ;)
> > >
> > >Seconded, this will be confusing for almost all users. Since the option
> > >onl
On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 4:02 AM Andreas Schwab wrote:
>
> On Jul 25 2020, Fāng-ruì Sòng wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 12:09 AM Andreas Schwab
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Jul 24 2020, Fangrui Song via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >>
> >> > This is to mimick nearly lines. collect2 should filter out opt
On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 12:09 AM Andreas Schwab wrote:
>
> On Jul 24 2020, Fangrui Song via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
> > This is to mimick nearly lines. collect2 should filter out options like
> > -fno-lto, -flto, -fuse-ld= before passing to ld. -f* are handled by case
> > 'f'. --ld-path needs its o
On 2020-07-03, Martin Liška wrote:
On 7/2/20 9:34 PM, Fāng-ruì Sòng wrote:
On 2020-07-01, Fāng-ruì Sòng wrote:
On 2020-07-01, Martin Liška wrote:
On 6/30/20 5:32 PM, Fāng-ruì Sòng wrote:
There is some concern about clang's -fuse-ld=path
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2020-June/0657
On 2020-07-01, Fāng-ruì Sòng wrote:
On 2020-07-01, Martin Liška wrote:
On 6/30/20 5:32 PM, Fāng-ruì Sòng wrote:
There is some concern about clang's -fuse-ld=path
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2020-June/065710.html and use
of COMPILER_PATH vs PATH.
Shall we introduce another option lik
On 2020-07-01, Martin Liška wrote:
On 6/30/20 5:32 PM, Fāng-ruì Sòng wrote:
There is some concern about clang's -fuse-ld=path
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2020-June/065710.html and use
of COMPILER_PATH vs PATH.
Shall we introduce another option like -fld-path=path (PATH is used,
COMPI
There is some concern about clang's -fuse-ld=path
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2020-June/065710.html and use
of COMPILER_PATH vs PATH.
Shall we introduce another option like -fld-path=path (PATH is used,
COMPILER_PATH is not used)?
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 6:04 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>
On 2020-01-21, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
On 21/01/2020 11:34, Mark Rutland wrote:
Hi Szabolcs,
Answers from a linux dev perspective below.
thanks.
On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 10:53:33AM +, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
i have to ask some linux developers which way they prefer:
e.g. -fpatchable-function
On 2020-01-19, Fāng-ruì Sòng wrote:
On 2020-01-16, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Szabolcs Nagy writes:
this affects the linux kernel and technically a wrong code bug
so this fix tries to be backportable (fixing all issues with
-fpatchable-function-entry=N,M will likely require new option).
Even f
On 2020-01-16, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Szabolcs Nagy writes:
this affects the linux kernel and technically a wrong code bug
so this fix tries to be backportable (fixing all issues with
-fpatchable-function-entry=N,M will likely require new option).
Even for the backportable version, I think
clang (including trunk and many older versions) incorrectly marks static local
variables (__tag) hidden when -fvisibility-inlines-hidden is used.
% cat b.cc
#include
std::shared_ptr foo(int x) {
return std::make_shared(x);
}
% g++-8 -fvisibility-inlines-hidden -fno-rtti -c b.cc
% readelf -s b.
33 matches
Mail list logo
