> >>> 2015-04-14 Ilya Enkovich
> >>>
> >>> PR target/65527
> >>> * cgraph.c (cgraph_edge::redirect_call_stmt_to_callee): Add
> >>> redirection for instrumented calls.
> >>> * lto-wrapper.c (merge_and_complain): Merge
> >>> -fcheck-pointer-bounds.
> >>> (a
Ping
2015-05-19 12:39 GMT+03:00 Ilya Enkovich :
> Ping
>
> 2015-05-05 11:05 GMT+03:00 Ilya Enkovich :
>> Ping
>>
>> 2015-04-14 17:35 GMT+03:00 Ilya Enkovich :
>>> On 10 Apr 03:27, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> + /* We might propagate instrumented function pointer into
> + not instrume
Ping
2015-05-05 11:05 GMT+03:00 Ilya Enkovich :
> Ping
>
> 2015-04-14 17:35 GMT+03:00 Ilya Enkovich :
>> On 10 Apr 03:27, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>> >
>>> > + /* We might propagate instrumented function pointer into
>>> > + not instrumented function and vice versa. In such a
>>> > + case we
Ping
2015-04-14 17:35 GMT+03:00 Ilya Enkovich :
> On 10 Apr 03:27, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> >
>> > + /* We might propagate instrumented function pointer into
>> > + not instrumented function and vice versa. In such a
>> > + case we need to either fix function declaration or
>> > + remov
On 10 Apr 03:27, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >
> > + /* We might propagate instrumented function pointer into
> > + not instrumented function and vice versa. In such a
> > + case we need to either fix function declaration or
> > + remove bounds from call statement. */
> > + if (flag_chec
On 24 Mar 15:06, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 12:22:27PM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> > 2015-03-24 11:33 GMT+03:00 Jakub Jelinek :
> > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:29:44AM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> > >> + /* We might propagate instrumented function pointer into
> > >> +
2015-03-25 13:15 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener :
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 10:38:56AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> --- gcc/passes.c(revision 221633)
>>> +++ gcc/passes.c(working copy)
>>> @@ -156,7 +156,8 @@ void
>>> pass_ma
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 01:06:46PM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> > There is still the wasteful pass_fixup_cfg at the start of:
>> > PUSH_INSERT_PASSES_WITHIN (pass_local_optimization_passes)
>> > NEXT_PASS (pass_fixup_cfg);
>> > which was
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 10:38:56AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> --- gcc/passes.c(revision 221633)
>> +++ gcc/passes.c(working copy)
>> @@ -156,7 +156,8 @@ void
>> pass_manager::execute_early_local_passes ()
>> {
>>ex
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 01:06:46PM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> > There is still the wasteful pass_fixup_cfg at the start of:
> > PUSH_INSERT_PASSES_WITHIN (pass_local_optimization_passes)
> > NEXT_PASS (pass_fixup_cfg);
> > which wasn't there before chkp. Perhaps this should be a different
> >
2015-03-25 12:50 GMT+03:00 Jakub Jelinek :
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 10:38:56AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> --- gcc/passes.c(revision 221633)
>> +++ gcc/passes.c(working copy)
>> @@ -156,7 +156,8 @@ void
>> pass_manager::execute_early_local_passes ()
>> {
>>execute_pass_li
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 10:38:56AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> --- gcc/passes.c(revision 221633)
> +++ gcc/passes.c(working copy)
> @@ -156,7 +156,8 @@ void
> pass_manager::execute_early_local_passes ()
> {
>execute_pass_list (cfun, pass_build_ssa_passes_1->sub);
> - execu
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> 2015-03-24 17:40 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener :
>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 12:22:27PM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>>>
>>> The question is what you want to do in the LTO case for the diffe
2015-03-25 11:16 GMT+03:00 Jakub Jelinek :
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 11:05:17AM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> > The question is what you want to do in the LTO case for the different
>> > cases,
>> > in particular a TU compiled with -fcheck-pointer-bounds and LTO link
>> > without
>> > that, or T
2015-03-24 17:40 GMT+03:00 Richard Biener :
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 12:22:27PM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>>
>> The question is what you want to do in the LTO case for the different cases,
>> in particular a TU compiled with -fcheck-point
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 11:05:17AM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> > The question is what you want to do in the LTO case for the different cases,
> > in particular a TU compiled with -fcheck-pointer-bounds and LTO link without
> > that, or TU compiled without -fcheck-pointer-bounds and LTO link with
2015-03-24 17:06 GMT+03:00 Jakub Jelinek :
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 12:22:27PM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> 2015-03-24 11:33 GMT+03:00 Jakub Jelinek :
>> > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:29:44AM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> >> + /* We might propagate instrumented function pointer into
>> >> +
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 12:22:27PM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> 2015-03-24 11:33 GMT+03:00 Jakub Jelinek :
>> > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:29:44AM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> >> + /* We might propagate instrumented function pointer into
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 12:22:27PM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> 2015-03-24 11:33 GMT+03:00 Jakub Jelinek :
> > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:29:44AM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> >> + /* We might propagate instrumented function pointer into
> >> + not instrumented function and vice versa. In su
2015-03-24 11:33 GMT+03:00 Jakub Jelinek :
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:29:44AM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> + /* We might propagate instrumented function pointer into
>> + not instrumented function and vice versa. In such a
>> + case we need to either fix function declaration or
>> +
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:29:44AM +0300, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> + /* We might propagate instrumented function pointer into
> + not instrumented function and vice versa. In such a
> + case we need to either fix function declaration or
> + remove bounds from call statement. */
> + if
On 12 Mar 13:09, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Instrumented function pointer may be propagated into not instrumented
> indirect call and vice versa. It requires additional call modifications
> (either remove bounds or change callee). Bootstrapped and tested on
> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. OK
22 matches
Mail list logo
