https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112470
--- Comment #8 from John Dong ---
(In reply to Richard Sandiford from comment #7)
> (In reply to John Dong from comment #6)
> > For applications without stack protection, there is no difference because
> > the function stack frame not changed wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112470
--- Comment #6 from John Dong ---
(In reply to Richard Sandiford from comment #5)
> Could you quantify the performance impact that you're seeing? Figures
> relative to no protection and to unpatched -fstack-protector-strong would be
> useful.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112470
--- Comment #3 from John Dong ---
(In reply to John Dong from comment #0)
> Hi, after the CVE-2023-4039 patch is installed, the code size and
> performance are affected after stack protection is enabled.
> Refer to https://godbolt.org/z/7dWeYd5
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dongjianqiang2 at huawei dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Hi, after the CVE-2023-4039 patch is installed, the code size and performance
are affected after
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dongjianqiang2 at huawei dot com
Target Milestone: ---
demo:
typedef struct {
int a;
} S;
void foo(S s)
{
return;
}
compile with gcc demo.c -mbig-endian -O2 -S
output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83466
--- Comment #8 from John Dong ---
Created attachment 51045
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51045&action=edit
patch to fix pr83466
patch to fix this issue for SYMBOL_SMALL_TLSDESC and SYMBOL_SMALL_TLSIE.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96455
John Dong changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100499
--- Comment #5 from John Dong ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> But expected result is end g_2823 = 32768, right?
> Clang returns the same result 32768.
Yes, I think so.
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dongjianqiang2 at huawei dot com
Target Milestone: ---
cat demo.c
#include
typedef unsigned short uint16_t;
typedef signed int int32_t;
static uint16_t g_2823 = 0xEC75L
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83466
John Dong changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dongjianqiang2 at huawei dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96892
John Dong changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96892
--- Comment #4 from John Dong ---
diff --git a/gcc/config/arm/arm.md b/gcc/config/arm/arm.md
index 1a8e498ba4c..97c2f6a1174 100644
--- a/gcc/config/arm/arm.md
+++ b/gcc/config/arm/arm.md
@@ -9301,6 +9301,7 @@ (define_insn_and_split
"*stack_protec
Component: ipa
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dongjianqiang2 at huawei dot com
CC: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
$ cat z1.c
#define likely(x) __builtin_expect((x), 1)
#define unlikely(x) __builtin_expect((x), 0)
int a=10
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96892
--- Comment #3 from John Dong ---
(In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #2)
> Wouldn't it be enough to add:
>
> "emit_move_insn (operands[3], gen_rtx_MEM(SImode, operands[3]));"
>
> just before the line "if (TARGET_32BIT)" in stack_prote
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dongjianqiang2 at huawei dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Simpile testcase:
#include
int main ()
{
int i;
char buf[20];
for (i = 0; i < 20; i++)
{
buf[i] = 'a';
printf("%c ,%d", buf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96455
--- Comment #3 from John Dong ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> No - I don't know how GCC 7 exactly behaved but with GCC 9 you have to
> control
> the partial link output kind via -flinker-output, you want
> -flinker-output=nolto
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dongjianqiang2 at huawei dot com
CC: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Hi, there is a partial linking with lto issue after upgrading gcc7.3.0
(binutils 2.34) to gcc9.3.1 (binutils 2.34).
void bar
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96267
--- Comment #1 from John Dong ---
Created attachment 48908
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48908&action=edit
add missing IN_GCOV_TOOL macro
hmmm refer to https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95332
Fix missing IN_GCOV
-profile
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dongjianqiang2 at huawei dot com
CC: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 48907
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48907&action=edit
gcda files
Hi,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95332
--- Comment #7 from John Dong ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6)
> Fixed on master, do you want to backport the patch to active branches?
yes, please backport to active branches. thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95332
--- Comment #4 from John Dong ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Hello.
>
> I support the patch, do you have a copyright agreement and can you send the
> patch to the GCC patches mailing list?
>
> One small nit I noticed:
> /home/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95332
--- Comment #3 from John Dong ---
Created attachment 48613
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48613&action=edit
a patch for gcov-tool modified.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95332
--- Comment #2 from John Dong ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Hello.
>
> I support the patch, do you have a copyright agreement and can you send the
> patch to the GCC patches mailing list?
>
> One small nit I noticed:
> /home/
nent: gcov-profile
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dongjianqiang2 at huawei dot com
CC: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 48605
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48605&action=edit
a pa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92637
John Dong changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92637
--- Comment #3 from John Dong ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > 214: aa0a03e0mov x0, x10 // HERE x10 is
> > overwriten by glibc
>
>
> Hmm, GCC knows that find_next_zero_bit will not clobber x10 so
-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dongjianqiang2 at huawei dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 47338
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47338&action=edit
testsuite
hi, I compiled the attached with aarch64-linux-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88739
--- Comment #59 from John Dong ---
(In reply to John Dong from comment #58)
> Created attachment 46022 [details]
> fix the union bug on 7.3.0
hi, I tried to fix the bug when expanding. is it OK?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88739
--- Comment #58 from John Dong ---
Created attachment 46022
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46022&action=edit
fix the union bug on 7.3.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88739
--- Comment #54 from John Dong ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #53)
> Fixed on trunk sofar, still waiting for somebody to produce a testcase for
> the testsuite (I can't run-test on BE).
hi, any plan to fix on gcc-7-branch?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88739
--- Comment #23 from John Dong ---
diff -urp a/gcc/expr.c b/gcc/expr.c
--- a/gcc/expr.c2019-01-09 03:19:03.750205982 +0800
+++ b/gcc/expr.c2019-01-09 03:38:23.414174738 +0800
@@ -10760,6 +10760,16 @@ expand_expr_real_1 (tree exp,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88739
--- Comment #13 from John Dong ---
(In reply to John Dong from comment #12)
> Created attachment 45379 [details]
> temp patch for Bug 88739
>
> I tried to fix this bug with attached patch, but we not sure if
> BIT_FIELD_REF ((unsigned:30)var, 16
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88739
--- Comment #12 from John Dong ---
Created attachment 45379
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45379&action=edit
temp patch for Bug 88739
I tried to fix this bug with attached patch, but we not sure if BIT_FIELD_REF
((unsigned:
: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dongjianqiang2 at huawei dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 45364
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45364&action=edit
demo code to recur error
#include
typedef unsigned int U32;
typedef unsigned short U16;
34 matches
Mail list logo
