ping
From: Wilco Dijkstra
Sent: 17 January 2017 15:14
To: Richard Earnshaw; GCC Patches; James Greenhalgh
Cc: nd
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3][AArch64] Fix symbol offset limit
Here is v3 of the patch - tree_fits_uhwi_p was necessary to ensure the size of a
declaration is an integer. So the
ping
From: Wilco Dijkstra
Sent: 17 January 2017 15:14
To: Richard Earnshaw; GCC Patches; James Greenhalgh
Cc: nd
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3][AArch64] Fix symbol offset limit
Here is v3 of the patch - tree_fits_uhwi_p was necessary to ensure the size of a
declaration is an integer. So
ping
From: Wilco Dijkstra
Sent: 17 January 2017 15:14
To: Richard Earnshaw; GCC Patches; James Greenhalgh
Cc: nd
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3][AArch64] Fix symbol offset limit
Here is v3 of the patch - tree_fits_uhwi_p was necessary to ensure the size of a
declaration is an integer. So the
ping
From: Wilco Dijkstra
Sent: 17 January 2017 15:14
To: Richard Earnshaw; GCC Patches; James Greenhalgh
Cc: nd
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3][AArch64] Fix symbol offset limit
Here is v3 of the patch - tree_fits_uhwi_p was necessary to ensure the size of a
declaration is an integer. So the
ping
From: Wilco Dijkstra
Sent: 17 January 2017 15:14
To: Richard Earnshaw; GCC Patches; James Greenhalgh
Cc: nd
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3][AArch64] Fix symbol offset limit
Here is v3 of the patch - tree_fits_uhwi_p was necessary to ensure the size of a
declaration is an integer. So the
On 06/15/2017 03:52 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
For example, given (array + (i - INT_MAX)), it's quite possible the
compiler could create a relocation for array - INT_MAX, and the original
expression is perfectly OK if i == INT_MAX even though array - INT_MAX is
far out of range. (And array - INT_M
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > No it's not. The optimizer doesn't create totally random bases. If the
> > code + data is less than 1M in size, then any offsets it does create
> > will fit within the size of the relocations selected by the compiler.
>
>
Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> No it's not. The optimizer doesn't create totally random bases. If the
> code + data is less than 1M in size, then any offsets it does create
> will fit within the size of the relocations selected by the compiler.
No that's completely false. There is no way you can guar
On 15/06/17 19:18, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>
> C11: Summary of undefined behaviours.
>
> — Addition or subtraction of a pointer into, or just beyond, an array
> object and an
> integer type produces a result that does not point into, or just beyond,
> the same array
> obje
Richard Earnshaw wrote:
C11: Summary of undefined behaviours.
— Addition or subtraction of a pointer into, or just beyond, an array
object and an
integer type produces a result that does not point into, or just beyond,
the same array
object (6.5.6).
That's totally irrelevant given the addition i
On 15/06/17 18:51, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>>
>> You can write it, but it's meaningless by the C standard. You can't
>> take the address beyond one after the size of the object, so anything
>> more than &a+1 has no meaning.
>
> No it's perfectly valid and such out-of-range
Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>
> You can write it, but it's meaningless by the C standard. You can't
> take the address beyond one after the size of the object, so anything
> more than &a+1 has no meaning.
No it's perfectly valid and such out-of-range cases occur thousands of
times when building any n
On 15/06/17 17:55, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> Yes, I still believe that this is a bug in the way we've documented the
>> -mcmodel=tiny and -mcmodel=small options.
>
> In what way could this possibly be a documentation bug? It's not at all
> related
> to the size of a binary
Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> Yes, I still believe that this is a bug in the way we've documented the
> -mcmodel=tiny and -mcmodel=small options.
In what way could this possibly be a documentation bug? It's not at all related
to the size of a binary. There is no limit to the offset you can apply to a
On 14/06/17 15:07, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 03:00:28PM +0100, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>>
>> ping
>
> I've been avoiding reviewing this patch as Richard was the last to comment
> on it, and I wasn't sure that his comments had been resolved to his
> satisfaction. The conversat
Hi,
Let's get back to the patch and the bug it fixes. The only outstanding question
is what
constant offsets we should allow when generating a relocation:
> So the question is whether we should allow
> largish offsets outside of the bounds of symbols (v1), no offsets (this
> version), or
> smal
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 03:00:28PM +0100, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>
> ping
I've been avoiding reviewing this patch as Richard was the last to comment
on it, and I wasn't sure that his comments had been resolved to his
satisfaction. The conversation was back in August 2016 on v1 of the patch:
> Ric
ping
From: Wilco Dijkstra
Sent: 17 January 2017 15:14
To: Richard Earnshaw; GCC Patches; James Greenhalgh
Cc: nd
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3][AArch64] Fix symbol offset limit
Here is v3 of the patch - tree_fits_uhwi_p was necessary to ensure the size of a
declaration is an integer. So the
ping
From: Wilco Dijkstra
Sent: 17 January 2017 15:14
To: Richard Earnshaw; GCC Patches; James Greenhalgh
Cc: nd
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3][AArch64] Fix symbol offset limit
Here is v3 of the patch - tree_fits_uhwi_p was necessary to ensure the size of a
declaration is an integer. So the
ping
From: Wilco Dijkstra
Sent: 17 January 2017 15:14
To: Richard Earnshaw; GCC Patches; James Greenhalgh
Cc: nd
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3][AArch64] Fix symbol offset limit
Here is v3 of the patch - tree_fits_uhwi_p was necessary to ensure the size of a
declaration is an integer. So the
ping
From: Wilco Dijkstra
Sent: 17 January 2017 15:14
To: Richard Earnshaw; GCC Patches; James Greenhalgh
Cc: nd
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3][AArch64] Fix symbol offset limit
Here is v3 of the patch - tree_fits_uhwi_p was necessary to ensure the size of a
declaration is an integer. So the
Here is v3 of the patch - tree_fits_uhwi_p was necessary to ensure the size of
a
declaration is an integer. So the question is whether we should allow
largish offsets outside of the bounds of symbols (v1), no offsets (this
version), or
small offsets (small negative and positive offsets just outs
22 matches
Mail list logo
