https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118752
--- Comment #1 from Nick Desaulniers ---
Perhaps clang::no_stack_protector, too. Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101537
Nick Desaulniers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ndesaulniers at google dot com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96628
Nick Desaulniers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||keithp at keithp dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77882
Nick Desaulniers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ndesaulniers at google dot com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78512
Nick Desaulniers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ndesaulniers at google dot com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111219
--- Comment #2 from Nick Desaulniers ---
Ah ok that makes sense.
Would it be possible to get that behavior documented on this page?
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Warning-Options.html#index-Wformat-truncation
We can probably modify clang
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111219
Bug ID: 111219
Summary: -Wformat-truncation false negative with %p modifier
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65213
Nick Desaulniers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ndesaulniers at google dot com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110947
Bug ID: 110947
Summary: Should -Wmissing-variable-declarations not trigger on
register variables?
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110728
--- Comment #10 from Nick Desaulniers ---
(In reply to Michael Matz from comment #9)
> That has to do with how we need to (possibly)
> split
> critical edges, which changes label identity, which in turn might actually
> be the thing that's requi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91951
Nick Desaulniers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ndesaulniers at google dot com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110728
--- Comment #7 from Nick Desaulniers ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I suspect PR 91951 is the same really.
PR 91951 seems to be about a missing diagnostic dependent on optimization
level. This bug report is more so a questio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37722
Nick Desaulniers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ndesaulniers at google dot com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110728
Bug ID: 110728
Summary: should __attribute__((cleanup())) callback get invoked
for indirect edges of asm goto
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108896
Nick Desaulniers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ndesaulniers at google dot com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108548
Bug ID: 108548
Summary: gcc asm goto with outputs not implicitly volatile
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107385
Bug ID: 107385
Summary: [asm goto] "=r" vs "+r" for outputs along indirect
edges
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65372
Nick Desaulniers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ndesaulniers at google dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100593
Nick Desaulniers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ndesaulniers at google dot com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104236
--- Comment #3 from Nick Desaulniers ---
Thanks for the feedback. I guess I was expecting these two to be somewhat
equivalent:
void x (int a) {
if (a)
asm("# %0"::"i"(__COUNTER__));
else
asm("# %0"::"i"(__COUNTER__));
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104236
Bug ID: 104236
Summary: asm statements containing %= assembler templates
getting merged
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98096
--- Comment #5 from Nick Desaulniers ---
While the changes to gcc/stmt.c and the second asm goto statement in
gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr98096.c in
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=gcc.git;h=72d78655a91bb2f89ac4432cfd6374380d6f9987
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103640
Bug ID: 103640
Summary: asm goto w/ outputs numbering with tied outputs
differs from clang
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103034
Bug ID: 103034
Summary: implement multiply with overflow
(__muloti4/__mulodi4/__mulosi4)
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91432
--- Comment #5 from Nick Desaulniers ---
> Not warning in this case is a very intentional part of those design decisions.
Can you provide a link to the discussion about this specific case?
Is re-evaluating the decision out of the question?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66425
Nick Desaulniers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ndesaulniers at google dot com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80223
--- Comment #23 from Nick Desaulniers ---
(In reply to Fangrui Song from comment #18)
> I
> think a similar topic may need to be raided on llvm-dev side as I feel this
> is the tip of the iceberg - more attributes can be similarly leveraged. So,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80223
--- Comment #16 from Nick Desaulniers ---
Clang patch (no_profile -> no_profile_instrument_function):
https://reviews.llvm.org/D104658
Kernel patches v2:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210621231822.2848305-1-ndesaulni...@google.com/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80223
--- Comment #15 from Nick Desaulniers ---
(In reply to Fangrui Song from comment #14)
> Can a no_profile_instrument_function function be inlined into a function
> without the attribute? This may be controversial but I'd argue that it can.
> GCC n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80223
--- Comment #12 from Nick Desaulniers ---
Ah, perfect!
commit 1225d6b1134b ("Introduce no_profile_instrument_function attribute")
LGTM: https://godbolt.org/z/779xzndY6
Looks like it landed in GCC 7.1.
Let me change over the attribute identifi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80223
--- Comment #10 from Nick Desaulniers ---
Link to kernel patches:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210618233023.1360185-1-ndesaulni...@google.com/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80223
--- Comment #9 from Nick Desaulniers ---
(In reply to Fangrui Song from comment #8)
> I am thinking of __attribute__((no_profile)).
>
> In Clang,
> -fprofile-generate(-fcs-profile-generate)/-fprofile-instr-generate/-fprofile-
> arcs are all diff
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80223
Nick Desaulniers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||elver at google dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100363
Nick Desaulniers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ndesaulniers at google dot com
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98826
Bug ID: 98826
Summary: [gcc vs g++] qualified type of members of anonymous
struct
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94722
--- Comment #10 from Nick Desaulniers ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9)
> I've said in that thread that I don't really like disabling the inlining, if
> we wanted to make sure everything is stack protected, we'd need to disable
> al
36 matches
Mail list logo
