Help regarding architecture and related info needed for ELF header
Hi, As mentioned earlier in previous thread, I am working on a project to bypass the assembler. I have already finished addition of .symtab section. While I am currently working to emit the debugging symbols directly from compiler, one thing which I missed was directly outputting the various info like architecture, machine type and OS ABI in ELF header rather than reading it from crtbegin.o. I tried my hand at it but couldn't find anything substantial. Any suggestion regarding the same will be helpful! Also a question to Jan and Martin, right now should I focus on debugging part or get this done before moving to it? -- Rishi
Re: GCC support addition for Safety compliances
On 12/07/2023 14:43, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote: On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 at 10:25, Vishal B Patil via Gcc wrote: Hi Team, Any updates ? You're not going to get any useful answers. You asked "Please share the costs and time as well." Costs for what? From whom? GCC is an open-source project with a diverse community of hundreds of contributors. Who are you asking to give you costs? What work are you expecting them to do? It is unlikely that you obtained GCC from https://gcc.gnu.org so you should probably talk to whoever provided you with your GCC binaries. Most people get their GCC binaries for free, and no such source is going to be able to help for safety compliance or any other kind of certification. Certification always costs time, effort and money. But there are suppliers who provide toolchain binaries with commercial support contract, and which could help with certification. I know Code Sourcery certainly used to be able to provide language compliance certification - I have no idea if they still can (it seems they are part of Siemens these days). Maybe Red Hat (part of IBM) can do so too, and possibly others. But perhaps that will give the OP a starting point. David For safety compliance you will probably need to talk to a third-party who specializes in that. I don't think you will achieve anything by asking the GCC project to do that for you. That's not how open source projects work. Regards, Vishal B Patil vishal.b.pa...@cummins.com Dahanukar Colony, Kothrud Pune Maharashtra 411038 India -Original Message- From: Vishal B Patil Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2023 4:18 PM To: Basile Starynkevitch Subject: RE: GCC support addition for Safety compliances Hi Team, Thanks for the response. Actually required for UL60730, UL6200. Please share the costs and time as well. Regards, Vishal B Patil vishal.b.pa...@cummins.com Dahanukar Colony, Kothrud Pune Maharashtra 411038 India -Original Message- From: Basile Starynkevitch Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2023 4:07 PM To: Vishal B Patil Subject: GCC support addition for Safety compliances EXTERNAL SENDER: This email originated outside of Cummins. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Need support from the GCC GNU for the some safety compliances. Can you please guide or check which GCC support the safety compliances. For safety compliance GCC is probably not enough. Consider (if allowed by your authorities) using static analysis tools like https://frama-c.com/ or https://www.absint.com/products.htm Be sure to understand what technically safety compliance means to you. DOI178C? ISO26262? Be also aware that safety compliance costs a lot of money and a lot of time. (you'll probably need a budget above 100k€ ou 100kUS$ and about a person*year of developer efforts) -- Basile Starynkevitch (only mine opinions / les opinions sont miennes uniquement) 92340 Bourg-la-Reine, France web page: starynkevitch.net/Basile/
Re: Network Services Alert#489707
You know, if you useless cocksuckers would spend half as much energy and
cleverness figuring out some kind of morally upright way to generate income
instead of scamming retards on the internet, you'd be billionaires by now.
This is what "civilization" has devolved to; a world of grifters scamming other
grifters. The only difference between this guy and the rest is that his scam is
obvious to intelligent people; the most dangerous frauds are the most
legitimate appearing, and are heavily promoted and legally enforced by
"authorities." Rob a bank and you go to jail; own the bank and you can rob it
all day long. We need to bring back the guillotine.
Dave
>On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 19:44:01 +0530
Michael Smith via Gcc wrote:
> Dear user, g...@gnu.org
>
> Thank you again for subscribing to us!
>
> [...]
>
> As you opted for auto-debit, the recurring fee will be debited again next
> year on July 10, 2024, unless you choose to cancel the subscription or stop
> auto-debit payments.
>
> If you wish to opt out or drop all charges and want the full amount refunded
> back to the original payment source, please contact us at +1 {888}-713-5735
>
>
>
> Regards,,
>
> Michael Smith
> Customer Support Dept.
> Toll-free Number: +1 {888}-713-5735
>
Re: Suspicious code
This looks like being part of gas, so you need to ask on . -- Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, sch...@suse.de GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE 1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7 "And now for something completely different."
Suspicious code
Consider this code:
1202 static fragS * get_frag_for_reloc (fragS *last_frag,
1203 const segment_info_type *seginfo,
1204 const struct reloc_list *r)
1205 {
1206 fragS *f;
1207
1208 for (f = last_frag; f != NULL; f = f->fr_next)
1209 if (f->fr_address <= r->u.b.r.address
1210 && r->u.b.r.address < f->fr_address + f->fr_fix)
1211 return f;
1212
1213 for (f = seginfo->frchainP->frch_root; f != NULL; f = f->fr_next)
1214 if (f->fr_address <= r->u.b.r.address
1215 && r->u.b.r.address < f->fr_address + f->fr_fix)
1216 return f;
1217
1218 for (f = seginfo->frchainP->frch_root; f != NULL; f = f->fr_next)
1219 if (f->fr_address <= r->u.b.r.address
1220 && r->u.b.r.address <= f->fr_address + f->fr_fix)
1221 return f;
1222
1223 as_bad_where (r->file, r->line,
1224 _("reloc not within (fixed part of) section"));
1225 return NULL;
1226 }
This function consists of 3 loops: 1208-1211, 1213 to 1216 and 1218 to 1221.
Lines 1213 - 1216 are ALMOST identical to lines 1218 to 1221. The ONLY
difference that I can see is that the less in line 1215 is replaced by a less
equal in line 1220.
But… why?
This code is searching the fragment that contains a given address in between
the start and end addresses of the frags in question, either in the fragment
list given by last_frag or in the list given by seginfo.
To know if a fragment is OK you should start with the given address and stop
one memory address BEFORE the limit given by fr_address + f->fr_fix. That is
what the first two loops are doing. The third loop repeats the second one and
changes the less to less equal, so if fr_address+fr_fix is one MORE than the
address it will still pass.
Why it is doing that?
If that code is correct, it is obvious that we could merge the second and third
loops and put a <= in t he second one and erase the third one… UNLESS priority
should be given to matches that are less and not less equal, what seems
incomprehensible … to me.
This change was introduced on Aug 18th 2011 by Mr Alan Modra with the rather
terse comment: "(get_frag_for_reloc): New function. ». There are no further
comments in the code at all.
This code is run after all relocations are fixed just before the software
writes them out. The code is in file « write.c » in the gas directory. Note
that this code runs through ALL relocations lists each time for EACH
relocation, so it is quite expensive. In general the list data structure is not
really optimal here but that is another story.
Thanks in advance for your help.
Jacob
analyzer: New state machine should be C++ only
Hi David, Lately I've been working on adding a new state machine to keep track of ownership transfers and misuses, e.g. to warn about use-after-move, partial or shallow copy/move. I'm trying to stay abstracted from heap allocated regions, and to rather work with "resources", so that the state machine could be easily further extended. However, the whole concern of ownership is really C++-like, and most of the checks would require things unheard of in vanilla C, such as copy/move operators, ctors & dtors ... Using those constructs, it is really doable to guess ownership of resources, whereas without them it becomes much more hazardous. So, should we make this new sm -adroitly called sm-ownership- C++-only ? Doing so would allow the sm to reuse code from under cp/*, thus it'd reduce duplicating code and would likely lead to less false positives in C++ -more precise function checks-, though it would make any future C-support more tedious. It's also going against the current flow of porting what's already done for C to C++. Best, Benjamin.
Re: GCC support addition for Safety compliances
On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 at 10:25, Vishal B Patil via Gcc wrote: > > Hi Team, > > Any updates ? You're not going to get any useful answers. You asked "Please share the costs and time as well." Costs for what? From whom? GCC is an open-source project with a diverse community of hundreds of contributors. Who are you asking to give you costs? What work are you expecting them to do? It is unlikely that you obtained GCC from https://gcc.gnu.org so you should probably talk to whoever provided you with your GCC binaries. For safety compliance you will probably need to talk to a third-party who specializes in that. I don't think you will achieve anything by asking the GCC project to do that for you. That's not how open source projects work. > > Regards, > Vishal B Patil > > vishal.b.pa...@cummins.com > > Dahanukar Colony, Kothrud > Pune > Maharashtra > 411038 > India > > -Original Message- > From: Vishal B Patil > Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2023 4:18 PM > To: Basile Starynkevitch > Subject: RE: GCC support addition for Safety compliances > > Hi Team, > > Thanks for the response. > > Actually required for UL60730, UL6200. Please share the costs and time as > well. > > Regards, > Vishal B Patil > > vishal.b.pa...@cummins.com > > Dahanukar Colony, Kothrud > Pune > Maharashtra > 411038 > India > > -Original Message- > From: Basile Starynkevitch > Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2023 4:07 PM > To: Vishal B Patil > Subject: GCC support addition for Safety compliances > > EXTERNAL SENDER: This email originated outside of Cummins. Do not click links > or open attachments unless you verify the sender and know the content is safe. > > > Hello > > > Need support from the GCC GNU for the some safety compliances. Can you > > please guide or check which GCC support the safety compliances. > For safety compliance GCC is probably not enough. > > > Consider (if allowed by your authorities) using static analysis tools like > https://frama-c.com/ or https://www.absint.com/products.htm > > > Be sure to understand what technically safety compliance means to you. > DOI178C? ISO26262? > > Be also aware that safety compliance costs a lot of money and a lot of time. > (you'll probably need a budget above 100k€ ou 100kUS$ and about a person*year > of developer efforts) > > > -- > Basile Starynkevitch > (only mine opinions / les opinions sont miennes uniquement) > 92340 Bourg-la-Reine, France > web page: starynkevitch.net/Basile/ >
RE: GCC support addition for Safety compliances
Hi Team, Any updates ? Regards, Vishal B Patil vishal.b.pa...@cummins.com Dahanukar Colony, Kothrud Pune Maharashtra 411038 India -Original Message- From: Vishal B Patil Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2023 4:18 PM To: Basile Starynkevitch Subject: RE: GCC support addition for Safety compliances Hi Team, Thanks for the response. Actually required for UL60730, UL6200. Please share the costs and time as well. Regards, Vishal B Patil vishal.b.pa...@cummins.com Dahanukar Colony, Kothrud Pune Maharashtra 411038 India -Original Message- From: Basile Starynkevitch Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2023 4:07 PM To: Vishal B Patil Subject: GCC support addition for Safety compliances EXTERNAL SENDER: This email originated outside of Cummins. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify the sender and know the content is safe. Hello > Need support from the GCC GNU for the some safety compliances. Can you please > guide or check which GCC support the safety compliances. For safety compliance GCC is probably not enough. Consider (if allowed by your authorities) using static analysis tools like https://frama-c.com/ or https://www.absint.com/products.htm Be sure to understand what technically safety compliance means to you. DOI178C? ISO26262? Be also aware that safety compliance costs a lot of money and a lot of time. (you'll probably need a budget above 100k€ ou 100kUS$ and about a person*year of developer efforts) -- Basile Starynkevitch (only mine opinions / les opinions sont miennes uniquement) 92340 Bourg-la-Reine, France web page: starynkevitch.net/Basile/
