On 08/10/2011 09:52 AM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> * md5.c (md5_read_ctx): Handle mis-aligned resbuf pointer.
Ok.
r~
On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 11:19 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> >
> > which makes me wonder if the right fix isn't to change
> > libiberty internally to not rely on the alignment.
>
> I think that would be the best fix. It hardly can be a perfo
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 August 2011 01:02:50, Steve Ellcey wrote:
>> On Tue, 2011-08-09 at 16:50 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I think I like using a union to ensure the alignment of checksum better.
>> > > In dwarf2out.c we are always
On Wednesday 10 August 2011 01:02:50, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-08-09 at 16:50 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > >
> > > I think I like using a union to ensure the alignment of checksum better.
> > > In dwarf2out.c we are always using one md5_ctx structure and one
> > > checksum buffer
On Tue, 2011-08-09 at 16:50 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> >
> > I think I like using a union to ensure the alignment of checksum better.
> > In dwarf2out.c we are always using one md5_ctx structure and one
> > checksum buffer but in fold-const.c there are routines where we use one
> > md5_ctx
On 08/09/2011 02:32 PM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-08-09 at 08:25 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> On 08/08/2011 03:22 PM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
>>> Oh, so after I declare md5, I call md5_finish_ctx like:
>>>
>>> md5_finish_ctx (&md5.ctx, md5.checksum);
>>>
>>> Is that what you are pro
On Tue, 2011-08-09 at 08:25 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 08/08/2011 03:22 PM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> > Oh, so after I declare md5, I call md5_finish_ctx like:
> >
> > md5_finish_ctx (&md5.ctx, md5.checksum);
> >
> > Is that what you are proposing? It seems a bit odd to put checksum i
On 08/08/2011 03:22 PM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> Oh, so after I declare md5, I call md5_finish_ctx like:
>
> md5_finish_ctx (&md5.ctx, md5.checksum);
>
> Is that what you are proposing? It seems a bit odd to put checksum in a
> a structure with ctx just to guarantee its alignment and not to
On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 11:45 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 08/05/2011 10:54 AM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> > - unsigned char checksum[16];
> >struct md5_ctx ctx;
> > + unsigned char checksum[16];
>
> How about
>
> struct md5_data
> {
> struct md5_ctx ctx;
> unsigned char checks
On 08/08/2011 02:24 PM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> Do you mean a union, as Andreas suggested?
No, I mean struct. The union is wrong, because both data elements
are live at the same time.
r~
On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 11:45 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 08/05/2011 10:54 AM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> > - unsigned char checksum[16];
> >struct md5_ctx ctx;
> > + unsigned char checksum[16];
>
> How about
>
> struct md5_data
> {
> struct md5_ctx ctx;
> unsigned char checks
On 08/05/2011 10:54 AM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> - unsigned char checksum[16];
>struct md5_ctx ctx;
> + unsigned char checksum[16];
How about
struct md5_data
{
struct md5_ctx ctx;
unsigned char checksum[16];
};
struct md5_data md5;
with the structure definition somewhere inte
Steve Ellcey writes:
> Obviously this isn't a perfect fix, it is relying on how GCC is laying
> out local variables which isn't gauranteed, but it fixes the problem and
> I thought I would see if I could get approval for this simple fix or if
> people think we need a more complete fix.
Why not m
Some recent changes in dwarf2out.c have caused GCC to generate unaligned
data traps on IA64 Linux. In looking a this I tracked it down to
md5_read_ctx in libiberty, which is called by md5_finish_ctx, which in
turn is called by various routines in dwarf2out.c.
md5_read_ctx has a comment that the b
14 matches
Mail list logo
