Ross,
> Kai Tietz writes:
> >I read that too, but how can I teach gcc to do this that registers are
> >callee-saved? I tried it by use of call_used part in regclass.c, but
> >this didn't worked as expected.
>
> I think you need to modify CALL_USED_REGISTERS and/or
> CONDITIONAL_REGISTER_USAGE in
Hello!
> From i386.md, alternative 1 of *fop_sf_comm_mixed is duplicated with
> *fop_sf_comm_sse. Why do we define a _mixed pattern here?
>
> (define_insn "*fop_sf_comm_mixed"
> [(set (match_operand:SF 0 "register_operand" "=f,x")
> (match_operator:SF 3 "binary_fp_operator"
Register alloc
I'm interested in creating a backend port of gcc for the PIC18xxx MCUs
and more specifically for PIC18F4550. If anyone has any past experience
or working code I would be delighted to hear from. As I've seen by
searching the mailing list archives there were some attempts in the
past, any useful
Mark Mitchell wrote:
However, I'm surprised that only GCC is listed as "vulnerable" at the
bottom of the page. We've provided information about a lot of other
compilers that do the same optimization. Why is the status for
compilers from Microsoft, Intel, IBM, etc. listed as "Unknown" instead
Brad Roberts wrote:
Additionally, the linked to notes for GCC are reflective of the original
innaccuracies:
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/CRDY-7DWKWM
Vendor Statement
No statement is currently available from the vendor regarding this
vulnerability.
US-CERT Addendum
Vendors and developers
From: Chad Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:52:26 -0400
> We won't include information about other vendors without either a
> statement from them or independent verification of their affectedness.
How, may I ask, did that policy apply to the GCC "vendor"
when this all go
David Miller wrote:
How, may I ask, did that policy apply to the GCC "vendor"
when this all got started?
Our own testing of multiple versions of gcc on multiple platforms and
subsequent confirmation by Mark that it was intentional, desired
behavior. This all occurred prior to even the initia
From: Chad Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:37:11 -0400
> David Miller wrote:
> > How, may I ask, did that policy apply to the GCC "vendor"
> > when this all got started?
>
> Our own testing of multiple versions of gcc on multiple platforms and
> subsequent confirmation by
David Miller wrote:
CERT is asking these vendors for "approval" for the text they will add
mentioning anything about their product. That's the bit I'm talking
about.
They are getting protection and consideration that was not really
afforded to GCC.
CERT treated GCC differently.
This is not t
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Chad Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brad Roberts wrote:
>
> > Additionally, the linked to notes for GCC are reflective of the original
> innaccuracies:
> > http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/CRDY-7DWKWM
> >
> > Vendor Statement
> > No statement is currently avai
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 7:06 AM, Giorgis Georgakoudis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm interested in creating a backend port of gcc for the PIC18xxx MCUs and
> more specifically for PIC18F4550. If anyone has any past experience or
> working code I would be delighted to hear from. As I've seen by se
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 09:06:56AM -0400, Chad Dougherty wrote:
> David Miller wrote:
> >CERT is asking these vendors for "approval" for the text they will add
> >mentioning anything about their product. That's the bit I'm talking
> >about.
> >
> >They are getting protection and consideration that
Hi,
I am returning to this issue and it is more
pressing testing powerpc on 4.3.0 and the trunk.
powerpc-rtems has gone from a relatively small
percentage of failures to >8300 and this warning
shows up a lot (5120334 times)!
Warning: /home/joel/work-gnat/svn/b-gcc1-powerpc/rtems_gcc_main.o uses
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Richard Guenther
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Chad Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Brad Roberts wrote:
>
> Which is in general a bad advice as older gcc versions may have wrong-code
> bugs that are serious and have secu
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 12:25:06PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Richard Guenther
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Chad Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Brad Roberts wrote:
> >
> > Which is in general a bad advice as
Mark Mitchell wrote on :
> Chad Dougherty wrote:
>
>> The vulnerability note has been significantly reworked to focus on the
>> issue of undefined behavior handling in the compiler and the fact that
>> conforming implementations are not required to warn of this condition.
>> I've tried to incorpo
> "Christopher" == Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Christopher> After consultation with Dan, I have set things up on
Christopher> gcc.gnu.org so that the git repository is updated every
Christopher> time an email message is received from the gcc-cvs
Christopher> mailing list.
C
Dave Korn wrote:
[ ... lots of exciting commentary on scientific method/etc.
that I leave out for the protection of the innocent ... ]
Huzzah! Way to stick it to the man! :-) :-)
> This VU falls massively far below the standards we have come to
expect
> from CERT, and should be withdrawn and
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 08:09:57PM +0200, Samuel Tardieu wrote:
>> "Christopher" == Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>Christopher> After consultation with Dan, I have set things up on
>Christopher> gcc.gnu.org so that the git repository is updated every
>Christopher> time an ema
From: Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:24:44 -0700
> If CERT is to maintain its reputation, it needs to do better. The warning
> is misdirected in any case; given the very large number of compilers that
> these coding practices cause trouble for, you need to focus on the bad
Snapshot gcc-4.2-20080423 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.2-20080423/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.2 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
Hello all,
The target that i am porting in gcc 4.1.2, has the following instructions
setb Rx, bitno
clrb Rx, bitno
where bit bitno of Rx will either be set or reset.
For statements like
a |= (1 << 2); and
b &= ~(1 << 2);
I can use the above instructions directly. But i am not sure how to
writ
22 matches
Mail list logo
