>> So ok to commit?
> Ok with the change suggested by Richard, I think it was:
addr = copy_to_mode_reg (Pmode, XEXP (shadow_mem, 0));
Done, r204251. Tested against x64 and ARM.
-Y
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:32:14AM +0400, Yury Gribov wrote:
> > so in the end I guess I have nothing against the original patch
> > (with whatever form of the copy to reg call is desirable).
>
> So ok to commit?
Ok with the change suggested by Richard, I think it was:
addr = copy_to_mode_reg (
> so in the end I guess I have nothing against the original patch
> (with whatever form of the copy to reg call is desirable).
So ok to commit?
-Y
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 01:06:21PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > If it is a pseudo, it is certainly a pseudo that isn't used for
> > anything else, as it is the result of (base >> 3) + constant, if it isn't a
> > pseudo, then supposedly it is better not to just keep adding the offsets to
> >
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 12:25:33PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> >> Any updates on this one? Note that this bug is a huge blocker for
>> >> using AddressSanitizer on ARM platforms.
>> >
>> > Sorry for the delay, I finally found time to look at it.
>> > While your patch
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 12:25:33PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >> Any updates on this one? Note that this bug is a huge blocker for
> >> using AddressSanitizer on ARM platforms.
> >
> > Sorry for the delay, I finally found time to look at it.
> > While your patch fixes the issue, I wonder if
Jakub Jelinek writes:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 09:35:21AM +0400, Yury Gribov wrote:
>> >>> I've recently submitted a bug report regarding invalid
>> unpoisoning of stack frame redzones
>> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58543). Could someone
>> take a look at proposed patch (a simple
> Sorry for the delay, I finally found time to look at it.
Np, thanks for helping!
> While your patch fixes the issue, I wonder
> ...
> potentially increase register pressure.
Makes sense. I didn't take care of this because I believed that we can
freely allocate vregs and rely on register allo
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 09:35:21AM +0400, Yury Gribov wrote:
> >>> I've recently submitted a bug report regarding invalid
> unpoisoning of stack frame redzones
> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58543). Could someone
> take a look at proposed patch (a simple one-liner) and check whether
>>> I've recently submitted a bug report regarding invalid unpoisoning
of stack frame redzones
(http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58543). Could someone take
a look at proposed patch (a simple one-liner) and check whether it's ok
for commit?
>>
>> Can you please be more verbose
>
> Do
Hi Jakub,
>> I've recently submitted a bug report regarding invalid unpoisoning
of stack frame redzones
(http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58543). Could someone take
a look at proposed patch (a simple one-liner) and check whether it's ok
for commit?
>
> Can you please be more verbo
> Can you please be more verbose
Right, I should have been.
So as you can see from the asm log in the bug description, prologue
writes shadow bytes corresponding to words at frame_shadow_base + { 0,
4, 8, 12, 16, 24, 28}. Epilogue should clear those but instead it zeros
out frame_shadow_base
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 06:10:41PM +0400, Yury Gribov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've recently submitted a bug report regarding invalid unpoisoning
> of stack frame redzones
> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58543). Could someone
> take a look at proposed patch (a simple one-liner) and chec
13 matches
Mail list logo
