On Sunday 11 March 2007 16:01, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 10:45:53AM -0400, Sadri SARRAY wrote:
Please, Would you like to send me a procedure to install the GCC
compiler on a Linux-Ubuntu OS ?
With a power screwdriver.
Granted, poster was totally new to Linux and asked
char p;
int main() {
p = ;
return 0;
}
Don't you think that should end up in rw data?
/*
.file t.c
.section.rodata.str1.1,aMS,@progbits,1
.LC0:
.string
.text
.globl main
.type main, @function
main:
pushl %ebp
On Thursday 25 January 2007 01:43, In Cognito wrote:
0x080483a7 func+3:sub$0x208,%esp
0x080483ad func+9:mov0x8(%ebp),%eax
0x080483b0 func+12: mov%eax,0x4(%esp)
0x080483b4 func+16: lea0xfe00(%ebp),%eax
0x080483ba func+22: mov%eax,(%esp)
On Thursday 25 January 2007 01:22, In Cognito wrote:
Hello,
It's nice to see a more security-minded release of gcc with v4.
Variables are moved around to reduce chances for exploitation,
-fstack-protector, etc. Great!
Why are local variables once-again adjacent to the saved frame pointer
On Saturday 23 December 2006 10:06, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote:
No, because you'd read past the end of the array:
#include stdlib.h
int main (int argc, char *argv[])
{
char *a;
if ((a == malloc (sizeof (char
{
int r;
a[0] = 1;
r = f (a);
On Friday 22 December 2006 03:03, Paul Brook wrote:
On Friday 22 December 2006 00:58, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
On Tuesday 19 December 2006 23:39, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
There are a lot of 100.00% safe optimizations which gcc
can do. Value range propagation for bitwise operations, for one
On Tuesday 19 December 2006 23:39, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
There are a lot of 100.00% safe optimizations which gcc
can do. Value range propagation for bitwise operations, for one
Or this, absolutely typical C code. i386 arch can compare
16 bits at a time here (luckily, no alighment worries
On Tuesday 19 December 2006 11:37, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
By the way, as I've tried to describe here:
http://cert.uni-stuttgart.de/advisories/c-integer-overflow.php
variable range tracking can result in reintroduction of
supposedly-fixed security vulnerabilities. 8-(
Interesting read.
On Tuesday 19 December 2006 20:05, Andrew Haley wrote:
Denis Vlasenko writes:
I wrote this just a few days ago:
do {
int32_t v1 = v 1;
if (v 0) v1 ^= mask;
v = v1;
printf(%10u: %08x\n, c++, v
On Tuesday 19 December 2006 22:46, Paul Brook wrote:
Compiler can optimize it any way it wants,
as long as result is the same as unoptimized one.
We have an option for that. It's called -O0.
Pretty much all optimization will change the behavior of your program.
Even x*2 - x+x? Or
On Friday 15 December 2006 22:30, Ferad Zyulkyarov wrote:
Hi
What are the standard practices with installing multiple versions of gcc
on a system. I renamed this gcc to be gcc-4.1. However, it looks like it
will still overwrite some files when I do 'make install'. Is this true?
As far
On Friday 15 December 2006 22:30, Ferad Zyulkyarov wrote:
Hi
What are the standard practices with installing multiple versions of gcc
on a system. I renamed this gcc to be gcc-4.1. However, it looks like it
will still overwrite some files when I do 'make install'. Is this true?
As far
Disclaimer: I am not a compiler developer.
On Wednesday 13 December 2006 12:44, Benoît Jacob wrote:
I'm developing a Free C++ template library (1) in which it is very important
that certain loops get unrolled, but at the same time I can't unroll them by
hand, because they depend on template
On Sunday 01 October 2006 15:34, Owen Lucas wrote:
Im doing a program that reads in stuff from the serial port under linux.
Once read in there is a bit of formatting and it then needs to get piped
to something else. At the end is the cut down code.
anyway the interesting part is in the
Hello people,
I tried to build and install gcc-4.2-20060805 snapshot.
First, I needed to add some initializers.
gcc seem to use -Werror at some stage and
might be used uninitialized warnings were terminating the build.
The patch is attached.
Then make bootstrap failed in a different way:
The
On Tuesday 01 August 2006 16:54, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Denis Vlasenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| if()
| (void)0; /* do nothing */
|
| will make you happy.
No, I'm not. I find it Very Silly.
Do you prefer buggy code like this?
| After a couple hours debugging code, I figured
On Wednesday 02 August 2006 08:30, Daniel Berlin wrote:
Denis Vlasenko wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28417
Right now Bugzilla internal problem prevents me from creating
an attachement there. So it goes here.
What problems?
Please let me know.
The only issue i
On Tuesday 01 August 2006 00:34, Jim Wilson wrote:
Denis Vlasenko wrote:
I still cannot figure out what precision is, so I restricted new code to
(n == HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT precision == HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT) case.
Need help here.
At the moment, there is probably no one who
On 7/30/06, Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 07:33:03PM -0400, Simon Boulet wrote:
After a couple hours debugging code, I figured our an if() somewhere
had a trailing ; like this:
if (memcmp(p, COMMUNITY, strlen(COMMUNITY)) != 0);
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28417
Right now Bugzilla internal problem prevents me from creating
an attachement there. So it goes here.
Not nice enough to go into release.
I still cannot figure out what precision is, so I restricted new code to
(n == HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT
On Thursday 27 July 2006 15:44, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 12:56:14PM +0200, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
does it mean I need a cross-compiler (to x86_64) to use -m64?
It's strange because then -m64 is not useful at all
- x86_64 cross compiler defaults to 64 bit anyway
I imagine a lot of you gcc people will laugh at me now,
but I finally bought amd64 machine and want
to compile 64-bit Linux kernel.
I am not able to do it. Tracked it down to a simple thing.
My gcc cannot compile any .c file with -m64 flag:
# gcc -m64 -c t.c
t.c:1: sorry, unimplemented: 64-bit
Hi,
I am building gcc-4.1.1 like this:
$SRC/configure \
--enable-languages=c,c++ \
--disable-nls \
--build=i386-pc-linux-gnu \
--host=i386-pc-linux-gnu\
--target=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
I noticed that gcc's div-by-constant optimization is a bit
suboptimal and want to improve it. I submitted it to
bugzilla:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28417
but I think big guys have no time for such a low-impact thing.
I want to do it myself.
However, I need a little helt in
On Thursday 21 April 2005 06:16, James E Wilson wrote:
Denis Vlasenko wrote:
Yes. wp512_process_buffer() was using 3k of stack if compiled with -O2.
The wp512.c I appended (sans table at top) is instrumented to show it.
Use make crypto/wp512.s.
See
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html
On Tuesday 19 April 2005 20:40, Chris Wright wrote:
* Denis Vlasenko ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tuesday 19 April 2005 08:42, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
modprobe tcrypt hangs the box on both kernels.
The last printks are:
wp256 test runs ok
testing wp384
NNnUnable to handle
On Tuesday 05 April 2005 19:34, Christophe Saout wrote:
Hi Denis,
the new i386 memcpy macro is a ticking timebomb.
I've been debugging a new mISDN crash, just to find out that a memcpy
was not inlined correctly.
Andrew, you should drop the fix-i386-memcpy.patch (or have it fixed).
On Tuesday 05 April 2005 19:34, Christophe Saout wrote:
the new i386 memcpy macro is a ticking timebomb.
I've been debugging a new mISDN crash, just to find out that a memcpy
was not inlined correctly.
Andrew, you should drop the fix-i386-memcpy.patch (or have it fixed).
Updated patch
childregs = ((struct pt_regs *) (THREAD_SIZE + (unsigned long)
p-thread_info)) - 1;
*childregs = *regs;
^^^
childregs-eax = 0;
childregs-esp = esp;
# make arch/i386/kernel/process.s
copy_thread:
pushl %ebp
On Saturday 02 April 2005 15:18, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
-O2 compile does inline copying, however, suboptimally.
Pushing/popping esi/edi on the stack is not needed.
Also mov $1,ecx; rep; movsl is rather silly.
I think I am wrong about push/pop. Sorry.
However, other observation is still valid
This patch shortens non-constant memcpy() by two bytes
and fixes spurious out-of-line constant memcpy().
Patch is run-tested (I run on patched kernel right now).
Benchmark and code generation test program will be mailed as reply.
# size vmlinux.org vmlinux
textdata bss dec
On Tuesday 29 March 2005 23:22, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
This patch shortens non-constant memcpy() by two bytes
and fixes spurious out-of-line constant memcpy().
Patch is run-tested (I run on patched kernel right now).
Benchmark and code generation test program will be mailed as reply
On Wednesday 30 March 2005 05:27, Gerold Jury wrote:
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 05:37:06PM +0300, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
/*
* This looks horribly ugly, but the compiler can optimize it totally,
* as the count is constant.
*/
static inline void * __constant_memcpy(void * to, const
33 matches
Mail list logo
