On 11/27/2017 11:44 AM, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 06:28:24PM +, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 11/21/2017 04:57 AM, James Greenhalgh wrote:
>>> I've finally built up enough courage to start getting my head around this...
>> Can't blame you for avoiding :-) This stuff isn't my ide
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 03:48:41PM +, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> On 28/10/17 05:08, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On 10/13/2017 02:26 PM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> >> For larger frames the first oddity is that there are now 2 separate params
> >> controlling how probes are generated:
> >>
> >> stack-clash-prot
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 06:28:24PM +, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/21/2017 04:57 AM, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> > I've finally built up enough courage to start getting my head around this...
> Can't blame you for avoiding :-) This stuff isn't my idea of fun either.
Right, here's where I'm up to... I
On 11/27/2017 10:33 AM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
>> On 28/10/17 05:08, Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>>> My hope would be that we simply don't ever use the params. They were
>>> done as much for *you* to experiment with as anything. I'd happy just
>>> delete them as there's essentially n
On 11/27/2017 08:48 AM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> On 28/10/17 05:08, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 10/13/2017 02:26 PM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>>> For larger frames the first oddity is that there are now 2 separate params
>>> controlling how probes are generated:
>>>
>>> stack-clash-protection-guard-size (defa
Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
>On 28/10/17 05:08, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>> My hope would be that we simply don't ever use the params. They were
>> done as much for *you* to experiment with as anything. I'd happy just
>> delete them as there's essentially no guard rails to ensure their values
>> are sane.
>
>
On 28/10/17 05:08, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/13/2017 02:26 PM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>> For larger frames the first oddity is that there are now 2 separate params
>> controlling how probes are generated:
>>
>> stack-clash-protection-guard-size (default 12, but set to 16 on AArch64)
>> stack-clash-pro
On 11/21/2017 04:57 AM, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> I've finally built up enough courage to start getting my head around this...
Can't blame you for avoiding :-) This stuff isn't my idea of fun either.
>
> I see one outstanding issue sitting on this patch version:
>
> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 05:08
I've finally built up enough courage to start getting my head around this...
I see one outstanding issue sitting on this patch version:
On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 05:08:54AM +0100, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/13/2017 02:26 PM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> > --param=stack-clash-protection-probe-interval=13
>
On 10/13/2017 02:26 PM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> Hi,
>
> To continue the review of the AArch64 frame code I tried a few examples
> to figure out what it does now. For initial_adjust <= 63*1024 and
> final_adjust <
> 1024 there are no probes inserted as expected, ie. the vast majority of
> function
Hi,
To continue the review of the AArch64 frame code I tried a few examples
to figure out what it does now. For initial_adjust <= 63*1024 and final_adjust <
1024 there are no probes inserted as expected, ie. the vast majority of
functions are unaffected. So that works perfectly.
For larger frames
Hi,
Sorry for the delay - I finally had a chance to look at this again.
I'll start with alloca:
@@ -15245,6 +15455,28 @@ aarch64_sched_can_speculate_insn (rtx_insn *insn)
}
}
+/* It has been decided that to allow up to 1kb of outgoing argument
+ space to be allocated w/o probing. If m
Wilco has done most of the design/implementation review work to-date and
should have state on most of this code.
--
Here's the current aarch64 patch for stack clash protection. It's the
only bits for stack clash protection that haven't been committed to the
trunk.
Looking through my archives I
13 matches
Mail list logo
