Hello,
the attached patch is a fix for PR104228.
Even if simple, I wouldn’t call it obvious, as it’s involving character
length and associate, so I don’t mind some extra review eyes.
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Ok for master/11/10/9?From 0819226560387b2953622ee3d5d051a35606d504 Mon Sep 17 0
Shadow Call Stack can be used to protect the return address of a
function at runtime, and clang already supports this feature[1].
To enable SCS in user mode, in addition to compiler, other support
is also required (as discussed in [2]). This patch only adds basic
support for SCS from the compiler
Hi, Richard,
I have sent out my v3[1], and (probably) fixed the previous issues,
please let me know if i got something wrong :)
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-January/589471.html
Thanks,
Dan.
On 1/25/22 02:19, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Dan Li writes:
+
if (flag_stack
Hi!
On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 11:38:23AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> Thanks. Given the original submission and most of the review work was done
> prior to stage3 closing, I went ahead and installed this on the trunk.
Unfortunately this breaks quite a lot of things.
The main problem is that GIMPLE all
Hi!
This test fails everywhere, because ? doesn't match literal ?.
It should use \\? instead. I've also changed those .s in there.
Tested on x86_64-linux (-m32/-m64) and powerpc64le-linux, ok for trunk?
2022-01-29 Jakub Jelinek
PR tree-optimization/95424
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/div
On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 03:14:16PM -0700, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > This patch will add the missed pattern described in bug 103514 [1] to the
> > match.pd. [1] includes proof of correctness for the patch too.
> >
> > PR tree-optimization/103514
> > * match.pd (a & b) ^ (a == b) -> !
On 1/29/2022 9:23 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Hi!
On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 11:38:23AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
Thanks. Given the original submission and most of the review work was done
prior to stage3 closing, I went ahead and installed this on the trunk.
Unfortunately this breaks quite a lot o
Dear Fortranners,
compiling with -fsanitize=undefined shows that we did mishandle the
case where a missing optional argument is passed to another procedure.
Besides the example given in the PR, the existing testcase
fortran.dg/missing_optional_dummy_6a.f90 fails with:
gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/m
These tests have always been failing for my cris-elf
autotester running a simulator; they take about 20 minutes
each, compared to the timeout of 720 seconds, doubled
because they timed out in another simulator setup.
They are the *only* libstdc++ tests that timeout for my
setup so I thought this'd
Sincere apologies for the issues. I wasn't aware of the need for a cast but
after reading the PRs, I understand that now. On the other hand, the
incorrect test case was simply a major oversight on my part.
I'll be sure to be more careful next time.
Thanks for the fixes!
On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 6:30 PM Zhao Wei Liew via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> Sincere apologies for the issues. I wasn't aware of the need for a cast but
> after reading the PRs, I understand that now. On the other hand, the
> incorrect test case was simply a major oversight on my part.
>
> I'll be sur
11 matches
Mail list logo
