On 05/23/2013 09:43 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> So you're saying the documentation is wrong, or at the very least
> misleading... What about dealing with address validation for soft accesses?
> Surely we get better code if the SFP ~= HFP since we end up with fewer cases
> where we fall back to
On 05/23/2013 09:28 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> Doing that would add significantly to the cost of setting up the frame.
It shouldn't...
>
> FRAME_GROWS_DOWNWARD
> Define this macro to nonzero value if the addresses of local variable slots
> are
> at negative offsets from the frame pointer.
Y
On 23/05/13 17:36, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 05:28:29PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
FWIW, I would actually recommend against conditionalizing FRAME_GROWS_DOWNWARD
for a new port. Just make it _always_ grow down and save yourself the
additional code bloat in the backend.
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 05:28:29PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> >FWIW, I would actually recommend against conditionalizing
> >FRAME_GROWS_DOWNWARD
> >for a new port. Just make it _always_ grow down and save yourself the
> >additional code bloat in the backend.
>
> Doing that would add signif
On 22/05/13 21:19, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 05/22/2013 12:43 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Changing frame grows upward into frame grows downward shouldn't be that
hard, see e.g. rs6000 port, where
#define FRAME_GROWS_DOWNWARD (flag_stack_protect != 0 || flag_asan != 0)
and grep the port where it u
On 05/22/2013 12:43 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Changing frame grows upward into frame grows downward shouldn't be that
> hard, see e.g. rs6000 port, where
> #define FRAME_GROWS_DOWNWARD (flag_stack_protect != 0 || flag_asan != 0)
> and grep the port where it uses FRAME_GROWS_DOWNWARD.
> Basically y
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:25:18AM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
> > > Then arises a runtime problem: aarch64's frame grows upward which is
> > > not supported: how long would it take to develop this support if at
> > > all possible?
> >
> > Better do what all other targets that want to suppo
[resending in plain text mode; arghh]
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Konstantin Serebryany
wrote:
> Hi Christophe,
>
> We would love to see the aarch64-specific changes in upstream repo
> (see https://code.google.com/p/address-sanitizer/wiki/HowToBuild).
> Once the changes are in the upstream
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 05:35:45PM +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> I have been looking at enabling libsanitizer for aarch64 GCC compilers.
>
> To make the build succeed, I had to modify libsanitizer code:
> - some syscalls are not available on aarch64 (libsanitizer uses some
> legacy ones such as
Hi,
I have been looking at enabling libsanitizer for aarch64 GCC compilers.
To make the build succeed, I had to modify libsanitizer code:
- some syscalls are not available on aarch64 (libsanitizer uses some
legacy ones such as open, readlink, stat, ...)
- unwinding code needs to be added.
What's
10 matches
Mail list logo
