> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Sandiford
> Date: Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 8:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix stack red zone bug (PR38644)
> To: Jiangning Liu
> Cc: Jakub Jelinek , Richard Guenther
> , Andrew Pinski ,
> gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Guenther [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 8:57 PM
> To: Jiangning Liu; Jakub Jelinek; Richard Guenther; Andrew Pinski; gcc-
> patc...@gcc.gnu.org; richard.sandif...@linaro.org
> Subject: Re: [PA
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Henderson [mailto:r...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2011 3:05 AM
> To: Jiangning Liu
> Cc: 'Jakub Jelinek'; 'Richard Guenther'; Andrew Pinski; gcc-
> patc...@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fi
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Jiangning Liu wrote:
> 4) There are over 300 TARGET HOOKS being defined in target.def. I don't
> think adding this interface is hurting GCC.
The reason why there are so many, is because everyone thinks what you
state here ;-)
Ciao!
Steven
@gcc.gnu.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix stack red zone bug (PR38644)
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 06:08:50PM +0800, Jiangning Liu wrote:
>>> As far as I know different back-ends are implementing different
>>> prologue/epilogue in GCC. If one day this part can
Richard Sandiford writes:
> In contrast, after the tree optimisers have handed off the initial IL,
um, I meant frontend :-)
> the tree optimisers are more or less in full control.
Richard
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> "Jiangning Liu" writes:
>>> You seem to feel strongly about this because it's a wrong-code bug that
>>> is very easy to introduce and often very hard to detect. And I
>>> defintely
>>> sympathise with that. If we were going to to do it
"Jiangning Liu" writes:
>> You seem to feel strongly about this because it's a wrong-code bug that
>> is very easy to introduce and often very hard to detect. And I
>> defintely
>> sympathise with that. If we were going to to do it in a target-
>> independent
>> way, though, I think it would be
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Sandiford [mailto:rdsandif...@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 4:15 PM
> To: Jiangning Liu
> Cc: 'Jakub Jelinek'; 'Richard Guenther'; Andrew Pinski; gcc-
> patc...@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re
"Jiangning Liu" writes:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 6:14 PM
>> To: Jiangning Liu
>> Cc: 'Richard Guenther'; Andrew Pinski; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
>&
> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek [mailto:ja...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 6:14 PM
> To: Jiangning Liu
> Cc: 'Richard Guenther'; Andrew Pinski; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix stack red zone bug (PR38644)
>
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 06:08:50PM +0800, Jiangning Liu wrote:
> As far as I know different back-ends are implementing different
> prologue/epilogue in GCC. If one day this part can be refined and abstracted
> as well, I would say solving this stack-red-zone problem in shared
> prologue/epilogue co
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Guenther [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 5:03 PM
> To: Jiangning Liu
> Cc: Andrew Pinski; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix stack red zone bug (PR38644)
>
> On Thu,
Andrew Pinski writes:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Jiangning Liu wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, for this bug, I don’t see your valuable comments previously in either
>> bug zilla and the [RFC] I sent out long time ago in gcc mail list. What I
>> see is a bunch of people agreed this problem should be
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 5:20 PM
>> >> To: Jiangning Liu
>> >> Cc: Andrew Pinski; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
>> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix stack red zone bug (PR38644)
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Guenther [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 5:56 PM
> To: Jiangning Liu
> Cc: Andrew Pinski; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix stack red zone bug (PR38644)
>
> On Wed,
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 4:39 PM
>> >> To: Jiangning Liu
>> >> Cc: Andrew Pinski; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
>> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix stack red zone bug (PR38644)
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 3:49 AM,
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Guenther [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 5:20 PM
> To: Jiangning Liu
> Cc: Andrew Pinski; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix stack red zone bug (PR38644)
>
> On Wed,
]
>> >> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 3:41 PM
>> >> To: Jiangning Liu
>> >> Cc: Andrew Pinski; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
>> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix stack red zone bug (PR38644)
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 5:32 AM, J
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Guenther [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 4:39 PM
> To: Jiangning Liu
> Cc: Andrew Pinski; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix stack red zone bug (PR38644)
>
> On Wed,
rg
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix stack red zone bug (PR38644)
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 5:32 AM, Jiangning Liu
>> wrote:
>> >> Think of it this way. What the IR says is there is no barrier
>> between
>> >> those moves. You either have an impli
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Jiangning Liu wrote:
> Just realized ChangeLog needs to be changed as well.
>
> ChangeLog:
>
> * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_using_red_zone): Remove inline.
> (TARGET_STACK_USING_RED_ZONE): New.
> * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_stack_using_red_z
.com; Richard Earnshaw; Matthew Gretton-
> Dann
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] Fix stack red zone bug (PR38644)
>
> > > -static inline bool
> > > +extern bool
> >
> > static bool
> >
> > > ix86_using_red_zone (void)
> &
> > -static inline bool
> > +extern bool
>
> static bool
>
> > ix86_using_red_zone (void)
> > {
> > return TARGET_RED_ZONE && !TARGET_64BIT_MS_ABI;
> > @@ -35958,6 +35958,9 @@ ix86_autovectorize_vector_sizes (void)
> > #define TARGET_STACK_PROTECT_FAIL ix86_stack_protect_fail
> > #endif
> >
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Guenther [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 3:41 PM
> To: Jiangning Liu
> Cc: Andrew Pinski; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix stack red zone bug (PR38644)
>
> On Tue,
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 5:32 AM, Jiangning Liu wrote:
>> Think of it this way. What the IR says is there is no barrier between
>> those moves. You either have an implicit barrier (which is what you
>> are proposing) or you have it explicitly. I think we all rather have
>> more things explicit r
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 4:36 AM, Jiangning Liu wrote:
> Fix a typo and CC x86/rs6000/arm ports maintainers.
>
> ChangeLog:
>
> * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_stack_using_red_zone): Change inline
> to be extern.
> (TARGET_STACK_USING_RED_ZONE): New.
> * config/rs6000/rs6000.
> Think of it this way. What the IR says is there is no barrier between
> those moves. You either have an implicit barrier (which is what you
> are proposing) or you have it explicitly. I think we all rather have
> more things explicit rather than implicit in the IR. And that has
> been the ove
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Jiangning Liu wrote:
>
> Sorry, for this bug, I don’t see your valuable comments previously in either
> bug zilla and the [RFC] I sent out long time ago in gcc mail list. What I see
> is a bunch of people agreed this problem should be fixed in middle end.
The on
Fix a typo and CC x86/rs6000/arm ports maintainers.
ChangeLog:
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_stack_using_red_zone): Change inline
to be extern.
(TARGET_STACK_USING_RED_ZONE): New.
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_stack_using_red_zone): New.
(TARGET_STA
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Pinski [mailto:pins...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 5:31 AM
> To: Jiangning Liu
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix stack red zone bug (PR38644)
>
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 3:26 AM
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Jiangning Liu wrote:
> This patch is fix PR38644, a 3-year-old bug.
>
> From the discussions in mail list and bugzilla, I think the middle end fix
> is a common view. Although there are stills some gaps on how to fix it in
> middle end, I think this patch at least
This patch is fix PR38644, a 3-year-old bug.
>From the discussions in mail list and bugzilla, I think the middle end fix
is a common view. Although there are stills some gaps on how to fix it in
middle end, I think this patch at least moves the problem from back-end to
middle-end, which makes GCC
33 matches
Mail list logo
