On 02/28/2018 02:39 AM, Steve Beattie wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 10:10:13AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
>> A few notes.
>>
>> 1. It's not even clear at this time that retpolining user space binaries
>> makes any sense at all. SO before doing anything to make this easier
>> I'd like
Hi Jeff,
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 10:10:13AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> A few notes.
>
> 1. It's not even clear at this time that retpolining user space binaries
> makes any sense at all. SO before doing anything to make this easier
> I'd like to see a justification for why it's really needed.
Do
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 8:54 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 7:47 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >> > Hi,
> >> > my main concern about the patch is that we now have
> >> > -mindirect-branch=thunk-extern
> >> > which is intended to work well and is used by kernel, but we also have
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 8:54 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 7:47 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> > my main concern about the patch is that we now have
>> > -mindirect-branch=thunk-extern
>> > which is intended to work well and is used by kernel, but we also have
>> > other
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 7:47 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > Hi,
> > my main concern about the patch is that we now have
> > -mindirect-branch=thunk-extern
> > which is intended to work well and is used by kernel, but we also have
> > other modes
> > that are documented and as such they should work
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 7:47 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Hi,
> my main concern about the patch is that we now have
> -mindirect-branch=thunk-extern
> which is intended to work well and is used by kernel, but we also have other
> modes
> that are documented and as such they should work but they may
Hi,
my main concern about the patch is that we now have
-mindirect-branch=thunk-extern
which is intended to work well and is used by kernel, but we also have other
modes
that are documented and as such they should work but they may lead to invalid
unwind info (or did I miss anything imporant here
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 9:32 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 9:10 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 02/22/2018 07:38 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jan,
>>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg02233.html
>>
>> Is OK for trunk?
>
> I see that using
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 9:10 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 02/22/2018 07:38 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> Hi Jan,
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg02233.html
>
> Is OK for trunk?
I see that using register makes the problem go away and pushing address to
On 02/22/2018 07:38 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
Hi Jan,
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg02233.html
Is OK for trunk?
>>>
>>> I see that using register makes the problem go away and pushing address to
>>> stack
>>> seemed bit odd anyway. However how does this w
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 6:38 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi Jan,
>> >>
>> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg02233.html
>> >>
>> >> Is OK for trunk?
>> >
>> > I see that using register makes the problem go away and pushing address to
>> > stack
>> > seemed bit odd anyway. How
> >>
> >> Hi Jan,
> >>
> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg02233.html
> >>
> >> Is OK for trunk?
> >
> > I see that using register makes the problem go away and pushing address to
> > stack
> > seemed bit odd anyway. However how does this work on other types of thunk?
>
> Kernel on
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 6:29 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 11:56 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> > On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 2:12 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> >> For
>> >>
>> >> ---
>> >> struct C {
>> >> virtual ~C();
>> >> virtual void f();
>> >> };
>> >>
>> >> void
>> >> f (C *p)
>> >> {
> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 11:56 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 2:12 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> For
> >>
> >> ---
> >> struct C {
> >> virtual ~C();
> >> virtual void f();
> >> };
> >>
> >> void
> >> f (C *p)
> >> {
> >> p->f();
> >> p->f();
> >> }
> >> ---
> >>
> >> -mindirec
On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 11:56 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 2:12 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> For
>>
>> ---
>> struct C {
>> virtual ~C();
>> virtual void f();
>> };
>>
>> void
>> f (C *p)
>> {
>> p->f();
>> p->f();
>> }
>> ---
>>
>> -mindirect-branch=thunk-extern -O2 on x86-64 GN
15 matches
Mail list logo
