https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112980
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112980
--- Comment #17 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Michael Matz from comment #16)
> (In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #15)
> > I agree, thanks for the comments! btw, I'm not fighting for the current
> > implementation, just want to know more
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112980
--- Comment #16 from Michael Matz ---
(In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #15)
> I agree, thanks for the comments! btw, I'm not fighting for the current
> implementation, just want to know more details why users are unable to make
> use of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112980
--- Comment #15 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Michael Matz from comment #14)
> Hmm? But this is not how the global-to-local hand-off is implemented (and
> expected by tooling): a fall-through. The global entry sets up the GOT
> register,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112980
--- Comment #14 from Michael Matz ---
(In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #13)
> (In reply to Giuliano Belinassi from comment #12)
> > With your patch we have:
> >
> > > .LPFE0:
> > > ...
> > Which seems what is expected.
>
> Hi Giuliano,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112980
--- Comment #13 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Giuliano Belinassi from comment #12)
> With your patch we have:
>
> > .LPFE0:
> > ...
> Which seems what is expected.
Hi Giuliano, thanks for your time on testing it! Could you kindly help to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112980
--- Comment #12 from Giuliano Belinassi
---
With your patch we have:
> .LPFE0:
> nop
> nop
> nop
> nop
> nop
> nop
> nop
> nop
> nop
> nop
> nop
> nop
> nop
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112980
--- Comment #11 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Giuliano Belinassi from comment #9)
> Yes, this is for userspace livepatching.
>
> Assume the following example:
> https://godbolt.org/z/b9M8nMbo1
>
> As one can see, the sequence of 14 nops are
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112980
--- Comment #10 from Kewen Lin ---
Created attachment 57844
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57844=edit
patch changing the current implementation
Considering the current implementation is not useful at all for both kernel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112980
--- Comment #9 from Giuliano Belinassi ---
Hello, Kewen.
(In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #8)
> Hi @Michael, @Martin, could you help to confirm/clarify what triggers you to
> be interested in this feature, is it for some user space usage or
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112980
--- Comment #8 from Kewen Lin ---
Hi @Michael, @Martin, could you help to confirm/clarify what triggers you to be
interested in this feature, is it for some user space usage or not?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112980
--- Comment #7 from Naveen N Rao ---
I have been looking at an alternative approach to see if we can move the entire
function patching sequence out of line. However, the approach I am considering
is very specific to the linux kernel, and I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112980
--- Comment #6 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #5)
> I'd like to ping this, are there plans to implement this in the near-ish
> term?
Some weeks ago, Naveen had been doing some experiments to see if there is a
better
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112980
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor ---
I'd like to ping this, are there plans to implement this in the near-ish term?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112980
--- Comment #4 from Kewen Lin ---
(In reply to Naveen N Rao from comment #2)
> I don't really have a preference, though I tend to agree that nops before
> the local entry point aren't that useful. Even with the current approach,
> not all
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112980
--- Comment #3 from Michael Matz ---
(In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #1)
>
> As Segher's review comments in [2], to support "before NOPs" before global
> entry and "after NOPs" after global entry,
Just to be perfectly clear here: the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112980
--- Comment #2 from Naveen N Rao ---
I don't really have a preference, though I tend to agree that nops before the
local entry point aren't that useful. Even with the current approach, not all
functions have instructions at the GEP and for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112980
Kewen Lin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org
Last
18 matches
Mail list logo
