> however
>> investigate the cleanup for the profiler code. It is not first time it hit us
>> and it would be nice to have less code output to function bodies that is not
>> visible to RTL passes.
>>
>
> This is the patch I checked into trunk. I wi
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 9:55 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 9:50 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 9:19 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> >> >> >> PING.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Hi, Jan Uros,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Can you review this patch?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I don't kn
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 9:50 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 9:19 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >> >> >> PING.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Hi, Jan Uros,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Can you review this patch?
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't know CET stuff, so I'm not able to review functionality of CET
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 9:50 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 9:19 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> >> >> PING.
>> >> >
>> >> > Hi, Jan Uros,
>> >> >
>> >> > Can you review this patch?
>> >>
>> >> I don't know CET stuff, so I'm not able to review functionality of CET
>> >> patches.
>>
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 9:19 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >> >> PING.
> >> >
> >> > Hi, Jan Uros,
> >> >
> >> > Can you review this patch?
> >>
> >> I don't know CET stuff, so I'm not able to review functionality of CET
> >> patches.
> >
> > My (very partial) understanding is that ENDBR is used to
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 9:19 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> >> PING.
>> >
>> > Hi, Jan Uros,
>> >
>> > Can you review this patch?
>>
>> I don't know CET stuff, so I'm not able to review functionality of CET
>> patches.
>
> My (very partial) understanding is that ENDBR is used to mark places where one
> >> PING.
> >
> > Hi, Jan Uros,
> >
> > Can you review this patch?
>
> I don't know CET stuff, so I'm not able to review functionality of CET
> patches.
My (very partial) understanding is that ENDBR is used to mark places where one
can jump/call. So we need to always arrange it first. Normally
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 4:34 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 5:08 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 4:09 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 6:23 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 7:11 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:58 AM, H.
On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 5:08 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 4:09 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 6:23 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 7:11 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:58 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:40 AM, A
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 4:09 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 6:23 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 7:11 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:58 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> "H.J. Lu" writes:
>> ---
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 6:23 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 7:11 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:58 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
"H.J. Lu" writes:
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr82
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:58 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> "H.J. Lu" writes:
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr82699-4.c
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
>>> +/* { dg-do compile { target { *-*-linux* && { ! ia32 } } } } */
>>> +/* { dg
On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 7:11 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:58 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>>> "H.J. Lu" writes:
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr82699-4.c
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+/* { dg-do compile {
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:58 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> "H.J. Lu" writes:
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr82699-4.c
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
>>> +/* { dg-do compile { target { *-*-linux* && { ! ia32 } } } } */
>>> +/* { dg
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:58 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> "H.J. Lu" writes:
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr82699-4.c
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
>>> +/* { dg-do compile { target { *-*-linux* && { ! ia32 } } } } */
>>> +/* { dg
ted patch to add a testcase for -mnop-mcount -mrecord-mcount.
No other changes otherwise.
--
H.J.
From 9037eb213339b72b2ad6f927b301f1730ff0cb16 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "H.J. Lu"
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 08:47:19 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] i386: Insert ENDBR before the profiling counter call
"H.J. Lu" writes:
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr82699-4.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile { target { *-*-linux* && { ! ia32 } } } } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -fpic -fcf-protection -mcet -pg -mfentry
> -fasynchronous-unwind-tables" } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-a
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 09:04:05AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> ENDBR must be the first instruction of a function. This patch queues
> ENDBR if we need to put the profiling counter call before the prologue
> and generate ENDBR before the profiling counter call.
>
> OK for trunk if there is no regressi
ENDBR must be the first instruction of a function. This patch queues
ENDBR if we need to put the profiling counter call before the prologue
and generate ENDBR before the profiling counter call.
OK for trunk if there is no regressions?
H.J.
---
gcc/
PR target/82699
* config/i386/
19 matches
Mail list logo
