On 01/08/18 09:54, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 09:48:50AM +0100, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>> Sorry about that, I did run a full bootstrap on x86, but I had the x86
>> mitigation patch applied, so it didn't trip this.
>
> Also, I see
> FAIL: c-c++-common/spec-barrier-1.c
On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 09:48:50AM +0100, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> Sorry about that, I did run a full bootstrap on x86, but I had the x86
> mitigation patch applied, so it didn't trip this.
Also, I see
FAIL: c-c++-common/spec-barrier-1.c -Wc++-compat (test for excess errors)
FAIL: c-c++
On 31/07/18 21:51, Ian Lance Taylor via gcc-patches wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 12:25 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 6:16 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Jul 2018, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>>
This patch defines a new intrinsic function
__builtin_specula
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 12:25 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 6:16 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Jul 2018, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> This patch defines a new intrinsic function
>>> __builtin_speculation_safe_value. A generic default implementation is
>>> defined w
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 6:16 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2018, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>
>>
>> This patch defines a new intrinsic function
>> __builtin_speculation_safe_value. A generic default implementation is
>> defined which will attempt to use the backend pattern
>> "speculati
On Fri, 27 Jul 2018, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>
> This patch defines a new intrinsic function
> __builtin_speculation_safe_value. A generic default implementation is
> defined which will attempt to use the backend pattern
> "speculation_safe_barrier". If this pattern is not defined, or if it
> i
On 27/07/18 13:11, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> + if (!COMPLETE_TYPE_P (type))
> +goto incompatible;
>
> Are incomplete integral types a thing? (forward enum extension?)
>
I don't think so, at least not at the level of having an instance of
such a type (as opposed to a pointer to one). Enums,
On 07/27/2018 08:32 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
The intention is to allow pointer to anything.
Oh, the speculation safe fetch is of the pointer itself, not the thing
being pointed to. I'd missed that. I'm not sure I understand why that
needs special casing down to the expander (why
On 27/07/18 13:11, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 07/27/2018 05:37 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>
> +/* Work out the size of the first argument of a call to
> + __builtin_speculation_safe_value. Only pointers and integral types
> + are permitted. Return -1 if the argument type is not supported or
On 07/27/2018 05:37 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
+/* Work out the size of the first argument of a call to
+ __builtin_speculation_safe_value. Only pointers and integral types
+ are permitted. Return -1 if the argument type is not supported or
+ the size is too large; 0 if the argument type
This patch defines a new intrinsic function
__builtin_speculation_safe_value. A generic default implementation is
defined which will attempt to use the backend pattern
"speculation_safe_barrier". If this pattern is not defined, or if it
is not available, then the compiler will emit a warning, bu
11 matches
Mail list logo
