that glibc
patches are upstreamed.
2013-10-28 Venkataramanan Kumar
* config/aarch64/aarch64.h (MCOUNT_NAME): Define.
(NO_PROFILE_COUNTERS): Likewise.
(PROFILE_HOOK): Likewise.
(FUNCTION_PROFILER): Likewise.
* config/aarch64/aarch64.c
Hi Richard,
> I don't think it's good to have long lists of targets on generic tests.
> Can we factor this out into a target-supports option?
I have updated the patch as per your recommendation. Please let me
know if it is fine.
2013-11-26 Venkataramanan Kumar
Hi Richard,
Pinging for further comments.
regards,
Venkat.
On 27 November 2013 14:24, Venkataramanan Kumar
wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
>> I don't think it's good to have long lists of targets on generic tests.
>> Can we factor this out into a target-supports option?
>
trunk?
regards,
Venkat.
gcc/ChangeLog
2014-09-04 Venkataramanan Kumar
* config/aarch64/aarch64.md (stack_protect_test_) Add register
constraint for operand 0.
diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md
index b5be79c..77588b9 100644
--- a/gcc/confi
Hi maintainers,
I just added "=r" and retested it.
gcc/ChangeLog
2014-09-04 Venkataramanan Kumar
* config/aarch64/aarch64.md (stack_protect_test_) Add register
constraint for operand 0.
diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md b/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md
ind
Hi James,
Yes we can just mark operand 3 as "&r".
PFB, the updated patch. Ok for trunk?
regards,
Venkat.
gcc/ChangeLog
2014-09-04 Venkataramanan Kumar
* config/aarch64/aarch64.md (stack_protect_test_) Add register
constraint for operand 0 and remove write only c
Hi Marcus,
I up streamed the changes to trunk.
There is no support for stack protection in FSF GCC 4.9 branch yet.
So I need to back port r209712 and this change together.
regards,
Venkat.
On 5 September 2014 21:17, Marcus Shawcroft wrote:
> On 4 September 2014 19:19, Venkataramanan Ku
Hi Maintainers,
This is RFC patch that adds machine descriptions to support stack
smashing protection in AArch64.
I have written a very simple patch that prints "stack set" and "stack
test" as template of instructions.
I had 2 assumptions.
1) For "stack_protect_set" and "stack_protect_test", I
Hi Joseph,
On 19 November 2013 21:53, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 04:30:21PM +0530, Venkataramanan Kumar wrote:
>> > This is RFC patch that adds machine descriptions to support stack
>> >
To make GCC for AArch64 generate TLS based stack access for glibc >=
2.19 I need to introduce a new macro
TARGET_LIBC_PROVIDES_TLS_SSP and check and set it for glibc >= 2.19 in
GCC configure .
Any better approach to this since it is specific to Aarch64?
regards,
Venkat.
On 20 Novembe
guard access for aarch64.
I have posted code snippet here.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg02968.html
ChangeLog:
2013-11-26 Venkataramanan Kumar
* configure.ac (gcc_cv_libc_provides_tls_ssp): Add test to
check TLS support in target C library for Aarch64.
Hi Maintainers,
This patch fixes the PR 60617 that occurs when we turn on reload pass
in thumb2 mode.
It occurs for the pattern "*ior_scc_scc" that gets generated for the 3
argument of the below function call.
JIT:emitStoreInt32(dst,regT0m, (op1 == dst || op2 == dst)));
(snip---)
(insn 634
Hi Ramana,
On 18 June 2014 15:29, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Venkataramanan Kumar
> wrote:
>> Hi Maintainers,
>>
>> This patch fixes the PR 60617 that occurs when we turn on reload pass
>> in thumb2 mode.
>>
>> It
Hi Ramana/Maxim,
On 18 June 2014 16:05, Venkataramanan Kumar
wrote:
> Hi Ramana,
>
> On 18 June 2014 15:29, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Venkataramanan Kumar
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Maintainers,
>>>
>>> This patc
Hi jeff and Richard
On 15 January 2015 at 03:10, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 01/14/15 04:27, Venkataramanan Kumar wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> When trying to debug GCC combiner pass with the test case in PR63949
>> ref https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
Hi all,
This patch changes make file and configure under libsanitizer, to
separate out X86_64 specific file "tsan_rtl_amd64.S" from getting
build for targets other than X86_64.
Ok for trunk?
Please review.
regards,
Venkat,
ChangeLog
2015-01-19 Venkataram
ping. Segher do you any comments from your side.
regards,
Venkat.
On 14 January 2015 at 16:57, Venkataramanan Kumar
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> When trying to debug GCC combiner pass with the test case in PR63949
> ref https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63949 I came across
ping.
Forgot to mention, GCC bootstraps and regression testing passed on x86_64.
regards,
Venkat.
On 20 January 2015 at 18:51, Venkataramanan Kumar
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This patch changes make file and configure under libsanitizer, to
> separate out X86_64 specific file "
Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 07:30:50PM +0530, Venkataramanan Kumar wrote:
>> ping.
>>
>> Forgot to mention, GCC bootstraps and regression testing passed on x86_64.
>
> Well, without a change from upstream to guard the HACKY_CALL and actual tsan
> port to non-x86_64 thi
Thank you Segher, I will send an updated patch for stage 1.
regards,
Venkat.
On 22 January 2015 at 21:46, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 07:29:28PM +0530, Venkataramanan Kumar wrote:
>> ping. Segher do you any comments from your side.
>
> I agree com
Jan 22, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 07:30:50PM +0530, Venkataramanan Kumar wrote:
>> >> ping.
>> >>
>> >> Forgot to mention, GCC bootstraps and regression testing passed on x86_64.
>> >
>> > Well,
Hi Rainer,
Yes thanks I will work on fixing this. Let me know if I need to revert
the patch meanwhile.
regards,
Venkat.
On 24 January 2015 at 02:23, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Hi Venkat,
>
>> I committed the patch with the change log corrections you said.
>>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=re
Biotechnology, Bielefeld University
Index: libsanitizer/ChangeLog
===
--- libsanitizer/ChangeLog (revision 220077)
+++ libsanitizer/ChangeLog (working copy)
@@ -1,5 +1,10 @@
2015-01-25 Venkataramanan Kumar
+ * configure.
Hi Rainer,
Please find the corrected patch attached. I removed some eval
statements I added for debugging.
regards,
Venkat,
On 24 January 2015 at 13:23, Venkataramanan Kumar
wrote:
> Hi Rainer,
>
> I reused libgcc's "host_address" test and the patch passed norm
Hi Jakub,
On 24 January 2015 at 14:40, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 01:23:22PM +0530, Venkataramanan Kumar wrote:
>> I reused libgcc's "host_address" test and the patch passed normal
>> bootstrap in x86_64.
>>
>> Can you please chec
Hi Jakub,
Thank you and I committed the patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=220083.
regards,
Venkat.
On 24 January 2015 at 20:38, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 08:09:24PM +0530, Venkataramanan Kumar wrote:
>> Index: libsaniti
Hi all,
When trying to debug GCC combiner pass with the test case in PR63949
ref https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63949 I came across this code.
This code in "make_compound_operation" assumes that all PLUS and MINUS
RTX are "MEM" type for scalar int modes and tries to optimize based o
2013-05-09 Venkataramanan Kumar
* config/aarch64/aarch64.h (MCOUNT_NAME): Define.
(NO_PROFILE_COUNTERS): Likewise.
(PROFILE_HOOK): Likewise.
(FUNCTION_PROFILER): Likewise.
* config/aarch64/aarch64.c (aarch64_return_addr): Handle
returning address fr
elf targets which uses newlib.
Patch1
-
gcc/ChangeLog
-
2013-05-12 Venkataramanan Kumar
* config/aarch64/aarch64.c (aarch64_return_addr): Handle returning
address from a frame.
Patch2
--
2013-05-12 Venkataramanan Kumar
* config/aarch64
eded for the clobber,
so that GCC will allocate a fresh register.
regards,
Venkat.
On 17 September 2014 03:06, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 1:18 AM, James Greenhalgh
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 08:42:31AM +0100, Venkataramanan Kumar wrote:
>>>
Hi Maintainers,
This patch adds supports to handle return address via. frame pointer.
gcc/ChangeLog
-
2013-07-28 Venkataramanan Kumar
* config/aarch64/aarch64.c (aarch64_return_addr): Handle returning
address from a frame.
Regression tested with
Hi Maintainers,
This patch defines some macros that are needed for profile generation
support in Aarch64.
I tested this patch on top of the patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-07/msg01333.html
Regression tested with aarch64-none-elf with V8 foundation model after
re basing to latest gcc
ction which uses _builtin_return_address(1), even
when -fomit-frame-pointer is used.
regards,
venkat.
On 29 July 2013 11:57, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 3:53 AM, Venkataramanan Kumar
> wrote:
>> Hi Maintainers,
>>
>> This patch adds supports to handle
bc as well.
2013-08-02 Venkataramanan Kumar
* config/aarch64/aarch64.h (MCOUNT_NAME): Define.
(NO_PROFILE_COUNTERS): Likewise.
(PROFILE_HOOK): Likewise.
(FUNCTION_PROFILER): Likewise.
* config/aarch64/aarch64.c (aarch64_function_profiler): Remove.
ping!
On 3 August 2013 23:31, Venkataramanan Kumar
wrote:
> Hi Maintainers,
>
> This patch adds macros to support gprof in Aarch64. The difference
> from the previous patch is that the compiler, while generating
> "mcount" routine for an instrumented function, also passe
x0, [x19]
eor x0, x1, x0
cbnzx0, .L7
Please let me know if this change is fine for Aarch64.
2014-01-22 Venkataramanan Kumar
* config/aarch64/aarch64.md (stack_protect_set, stack_protect_test)
(stack_protect_set_, stack_protect_test_): Add
machine descri
ping.
On 22 January 2014 22:27, Venkataramanan Kumar
wrote:
> Hi Marcus,
>
> After we changed the frame growing direction (downwards) in Aarch64,
> the back-end now generates stack smashing set and test based on
> generic code available in GCC.
>
> But most of the ports (i3
Can someone review this please.
regards,
Venkat.
On 22 January 2014 22:27, Venkataramanan Kumar
wrote:
> Hi Marcus,
>
> After we changed the frame growing direction (downwards) in Aarch64,
> the back-end now generates stack smashing set and test based on
> generic code available
oes a run time test. It failed in cross compilation
environment and these are compile only tests.
Also I thought richard suggested me to add a new option for this.
ref: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg03358.html
regards,
Venkat.
On 4 February 2014 21:39, Marcus Shawcroft wrote:
> H
Hi Jiong,
(Snip)
+ && (op0 == virtual_stack_vars_rtx
+ || op0 == frame_pointer_rtx
+ || op0 == arg_pointer_rtx)
(Snip)
The above check is means that these are the ways to access the frame.
is it possible to have stack_pointer_rtx has op0?
On 1 August 2014 14:01, Jiong Wang wrote:
>
s that is a
> different issue.
>
I used the existing dg-require-effective-target check,
"stack_protector" and added it in a separate line.
ChangeLog.
2014-03-19 Venkataramanan Kumar
* g++.dg/fstack-protector-strong.C: Add effetive target check for
stack protec
Hi Marcus,
On 14 March 2014 19:42, Marcus Shawcroft wrote:
> Hi Venkat
>
> On 5 February 2014 10:29, Venkataramanan Kumar
> wrote:
>> Hi Marcus,
>>
>>> + "ldr\\t%x2, %1\;str\\t%x2, %0\;mov\t%x2,0"
>>> + [(set_attr "length" "1
Hi Maintainers,
The attached patch backports the gcc trunk patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-01/msg00143.html to
"ARM/aarch64-4.7-branch" branch.
ChangeLog.aarch64
2013-01-27 Venkataramanan Kumar
Backport from mainline.
2013-01-04 Andrew Pinski
43 matches
Mail list logo
