On 05/02/2018 12:57 AM, Thomas Preudhomme wrote:
> Hi Segher,
>
> As mentionned in the ticket this was my first thought but this means
> making the pattern aware of all the possible way the address could be
> access (PIC Vs non-PIC, Arm Vs Thumb-2 Vs Thumb-1) to decide how many
> scratch registers
Hi Thomas,
On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 05:52:57AM +0100, Thomas Preudhomme wrote:
> >> As mentionned in the ticket this was my first thought but this means
> >> making the pattern aware of all the possible way the address could be
> >> access (PIC Vs non-PIC, Arm Vs Thumb-2 Vs Thumb-1) to decide how m
I'll make a fool of myself but I still have further questions if you don't
mind (see inline).
On Friday, 4 May 2018, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 07:57:55AM +0100, Thomas Preudhomme wrote:
>> As mentionned in the ticket this was my first thought but this means
>> ma
On 05/03/2018 10:55 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 07:57:55AM +0100, Thomas Preudhomme wrote:
>> As mentionned in the ticket this was my first thought but this means
>> making the pattern aware of all the possible way the address could be
>> access (PIC Vs non-PIC,
Hi!
On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 07:57:55AM +0100, Thomas Preudhomme wrote:
> As mentionned in the ticket this was my first thought but this means
> making the pattern aware of all the possible way the address could be
> access (PIC Vs non-PIC, Arm Vs Thumb-2 Vs Thumb-1) to decide how many
> scratch re
Hi Segher,
As mentionned in the ticket this was my first thought but this means
making the pattern aware of all the possible way the address could be
access (PIC Vs non-PIC, Arm Vs Thumb-2 Vs Thumb-1) to decide how many
scratch registers are needed. I'd rather reuse the existing pattern as
much as
Hi!
On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 12:32:26AM +0100, Thomas Preudhomme wrote:
> On Arm (Aarch32 and Aarch64) the stack protector's guard is accessed by
> loading its address first before loading its value from it as part of
> the stack_protect_set or stack_protect_check insn pattern. This creates
> the r
Thomas Preudhomme writes:
> On Arm (Aarch32 and Aarch64) the stack protector's guard is accessed by
> loading its address first before loading its value from it as part of
> the stack_protect_set or stack_protect_check insn pattern. This creates
> the risk of spilling between the two.
>
> It is pa
k?
Best regards,
Thomas
From 76c48e31130f212721addeeca830477e3b6f5e10 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Thomas Preud'homme
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 14:37:11 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] [ARM] Fix PR85434: spill of stack protector's guard address
On Arm (Aarch32 and Aarch64) the stack protector's guard is
