Re: [PATCH v5] Introduce strub: machine-independent stack scrubbing

2023-12-07 Thread Alexandre Oliva
On Dec 6, 2023, Jan Hubicka wrote: > There is also access attribute which speaks directly about individual > arugments, perhaps you want to drop this one too? Ah, I've looked a little into it, and now I have a vague recollection of why I don't mess with them: they only apply to arguments of poi

Re: [PATCH v5] Introduce strub: machine-independent stack scrubbing

2023-12-07 Thread Alexandre Oliva
On Dec 6, 2023, Jan Hubicka wrote: > I am sorry for sending this late. No need to be sorry. Thank you very much for taking the time to review and comment on it. > I think the ipa changes are generally fine. Phew :-) >> +static inline bool >> +strub_always_inline_p (cgraph_node *node) >> +{

Re: [PATCH v5] Introduce strub: machine-independent stack scrubbing

2023-12-06 Thread Jan Hubicka
Hi, I am sorry for sending this late. I think the ipa changes are generally fine. There are few things which was not clear to me. > for gcc/ChangeLog > > * Makefile.in (OBJS): Add ipa-strub.o. > (GTFILES): Add ipa-strub.cc. > * builtins.def (BUILT_IN_STACK_ADDRESS): New. >

Re: [PATCH v5] Introduce strub: machine-independent stack scrubbing

2023-12-05 Thread Alexandre Oliva
On Dec 5, 2023, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > I intend to install this as part of the monster patch upthread. I tweaked it a little further, so that exceptions don't mess with the pattern counts, and extending the same anti-vrp measure to the other strub-const tests, even though they weren't affecte

Re: [PATCH v5] Introduce strub: machine-independent stack scrubbing

2023-12-04 Thread Alexandre Oliva
The recently-installed patch for interprocedural value-range propagation enabled some folding that was not expected by the strub-const testcases, causing them to fail. I'm making the following adjustments to them to restore the behavior they tested for, and to make them more future-proof to future