https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102953
--- Comment #25 from Andrew Cooper ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #24)
> (In reply to Andrew Cooper from comment #23)
> > Apologies for the delay, but I do now have a working prototype of Xen with
> > CET-IBT active, using the current ver
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102953
--- Comment #24 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Andrew Cooper from comment #23)
> Apologies for the delay, but I do now have a working prototype of Xen with
> CET-IBT active, using the current version of these patches.
>
> The result actually bui
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102953
--- Comment #23 from Andrew Cooper ---
Apologies for the delay, but I do now have a working prototype of Xen with
CET-IBT active, using the current version of these patches.
The result actually builds back to older versions of GCCs, but the lac
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102953
--- Comment #22 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Andrew Cooper from comment #21)
> Another possibly-bug, but possibly mis-expectations on my behalf.
>
> I've found some code in the depths of Xen which is causing a failure on
> final link due to a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102953
--- Comment #21 from Andrew Cooper ---
Another possibly-bug, but possibly mis-expectations on my behalf.
I've found some code in the depths of Xen which is causing a failure on final
link due to a missing `__x86_indirect_thunk_nt_rax` symbol.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102953
--- Comment #20 from Andrew Cooper ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #19)
> (In reply to Andrew Cooper from comment #17)
> > I think I've found a bug in the -fcf-check-attribute implementation.
>
> Please try the v5 patch.
Thanks. That do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102953
--- Comment #19 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Andrew Cooper from comment #17)
> I think I've found a bug in the -fcf-check-attribute implementation.
>
Please try the v5 patch. BTW, do you have a testcase to show how
-fcf-check-attribute=yes i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102953
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51696|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102953
--- Comment #17 from Andrew Cooper ---
I think I've found a bug in the -fcf-check-attribute implementation.
$ cat fnptr-array-arg.c
static int __attribute__((cf_check)) foo(char a[], int b)
{
return 0;
}
int (*ptr)(char[], int)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102953
--- Comment #16 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Andrew Cooper from comment #14)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #13)
> > (In reply to Andrew Cooper from comment #11)
> > >
> > > There should be a diagnostic, but it ought to include cf_check i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102953
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51693|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102953
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Cooper ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #13)
> (In reply to Andrew Cooper from comment #11)
> >
> > There should be a diagnostic, but it ought to include cf_check in the type
> > it prints.
>
> Try the v3 patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102953
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Andrew Cooper from comment #11)
>
> There should be a diagnostic, but it ought to include cf_check in the type
> it prints.
Try the v3 patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102953
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51687|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102953
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Cooper ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #10)
> (In reply to Andrew Cooper from comment #8)
> > Actually, there is a (possibly pre-existing) diagnostics issue:
> >
> > $ cat proto.c
> > static void __attribute__(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102953
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Andrew Cooper from comment #8)
> Actually, there is a (possibly pre-existing) diagnostics issue:
>
> $ cat proto.c
> static void __attribute__((cf_check)) foo(void);
> static void __attribute__((unu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102953
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51672|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102953
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Cooper ---
Actually, there is a (possibly pre-existing) diagnostics issue:
$ cat proto.c
static void __attribute__((cf_check)) foo(void);
static void __attribute__((unused)) foo(void)
{
}
void (*ptr)(void) = foo;
$ g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102953
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Cooper ---
Thankyou. I've tried these two patches and they do appear to be behaving as
intended.
I've put together a slightly extended version of the original test. Compile
with gcc -Wall -fno-pic -Os -fcf-protectio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102953
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #51670|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102953
peterz at infradead dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peterz at infradead dot org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102953
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu ---
Plea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102953
--- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu ---
Created attachment 51672
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51672&action=edit
Add -fcf-check-attribute=[yes|no]
-fcf-check-attribute=[yes|no] implies "cf_check" or "nocf_check"
function attribut
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102953
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2021-10-26
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102953
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crazylht at gmail dot com,
25 matches
Mail list logo
