https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113000
Jose E. Marchesi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116718
--- Comment #2 from Jose E. Marchesi ---
As far as I can tell the feature requires no inlining to happen. From the llvm
patch:
After this patch-set verifier would rewrite the program below:
r2 = 1
*(u64 *)(r10 - 32) = r2
call %[bpf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116718
Bug ID: 116718
Summary: bpf: support bpf_fastcall attributes
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116717
Bug ID: 116717
Summary: bpf: fix built-in functions for memory model aware
atomic operations.
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116663
Jose E. Marchesi changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jemarch at gcc dot gnu.org
R
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108189
--- Comment #13 from Jose E. Marchesi ---
In bpf-next we are passing -Wno-error for the particular BPF selftests that use
this construct:
progs/btf_dump_test_case_bitfields.c-CFLAGS := -Wno-error
progs/btf_dump_test_case_namespacing.c-CFLAGS :=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114523
--- Comment #13 from Jose E. Marchesi ---
Thanks. The new title is way better. And thank you for the further analysis
and the reproducer that also makes clang to generate the no-verifiable code!
I wonder, is the issue also there when -mno-alu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114431
Bug 114431 depends on bug 114523, which changed state.
Bug 114523 Summary: bpf: ssa-phiopt optimization generates unverifiable code.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114523
What|Removed |Added
-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114523
Jose E. Marchesi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114431
--- Comment #4 from Jose E. Marchesi ---
Created attachment 57797
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57797&action=edit
restrict-fs-.bpf.unstripped.i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114431
--- Comment #3 from Jose E. Marchesi ---
Created attachment 57796
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57796&action=edit
restrict-ifaces.bpf.unstripped.i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114431
--- Comment #2 from Jose E. Marchesi ---
Created attachment 57795
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57795&action=edit
socket-bind.bpf.unstripped.i
preprocessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114431
--- Comment #1 from Jose E. Marchesi ---
$ bpf-gcc --version
bpf-gcc (14-20240127-1+1) 14.0.1 20240127 (experimental) [master
r14-8465-g5200ef26ac1]
Copyright (C) 2024 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for cop
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114431
Bug ID: 114431
Summary: bpf: GCC generates unverifiable code for systemd
restrict_fs_bpf
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113825
Bug ID: 113825
Summary: missing warning for omitted parameter names in
function definitions (c23 extension)
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Seve
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113225
Jose E. Marchesi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113000
Bug ID: 113000
Summary: Generate BTF always in early-finish regardless of
CO-RE
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109253
--- Comment #6 from Jose E. Marchesi ---
(In reply to Shung-Hsi Yu from comment #5)
> any chance we will also have this fix in GCC 13?
Yes. We plan to backport this and many other BPF related fixes and
improvements to GCC 10, 11, 12 and 13, on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109253
Jose E. Marchesi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112656
Jose E. Marchesi changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||david.faust at oracle dot com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107844
Jose E. Marchesi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112656
--- Comment #3 from Jose E. Marchesi ---
clang does not emit BTF FUNC nor FUNC_PROTO entries for inlined functions. So
the fix is probably to not emit CTF_K_FUNCTION entries that have not been
handled in the FOR_EACH_FUNCTION loop.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112656
--- Comment #2 from Jose E. Marchesi ---
The btf_collect_datasec function in btf2out.cc traverses the cgraph and, for
each function, transforms its CTF_K_FUNCTION into a pair of BTF_KIND_FUNC_PROTO
and BTF_KIND_FUNC. But if the function is inli
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112656
--- Comment #1 from Jose E. Marchesi ---
Smaller reproducer:
static void log_event(const char *event_name, void *dev_ptr)
{
}
void lala ()
{
log_event ("foobar", ((void *)0));
}
Note that the FUNC_PROTO for log_event seems to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112656
Bug ID: 112656
Summary: btf: function prototypes generated with name
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112654
--- Comment #4 from Jose E. Marchesi ---
I think the problem here may be that OP's kernel doesn't understand BPF V4
instructions, and the program above has been compiled with them (movs). Try to
use -mcpu=v3?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112654
--- Comment #3 from Jose E. Marchesi ---
The instruction failing validation seems to be:
e0: bf a4 00 00 00 00 00 00 mov %r4,%r10
Which is a regular MOV instruction with zeroes in imm32 and offset16. It has
SRC=X. So I don't unde
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112465
Bug ID: 112465
Summary: libgcc: aarch64: lse runtime does not work with big
data segments
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107481
Jose E. Marchesi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107480
Jose E. Marchesi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107479
Jose E. Marchesi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44209
Bug 44209 depends on bug 106537, which changed state.
Bug 106537 Summary: GCC doesn't support -W[no-]compare-distinct-pointer-types
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106537
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106537
Jose E. Marchesi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109253
--- Comment #2 from Jose E. Marchesi ---
A patch to fix this was sent
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-August/627864.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48783
Jose E. Marchesi changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jemarch at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108790
Jose E. Marchesi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110782
Jose E. Marchesi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110784
Jose E. Marchesi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110770
Jose E. Marchesi changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jemarch at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111029
Jose E. Marchesi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44209
Bug 44209 depends on bug 106537, which changed state.
Bug 106537 Summary: GCC doesn't support -W[no-]compare-distinct-pointer-types
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106537
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106537
Jose E. Marchesi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111046
Jose E. Marchesi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111046
Bug ID: 111046
Summary: bpf: support naked functions in BPF
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111029
Bug ID: 111029
Summary: bpf: GCC generates invalid instructions wN = (s8) rM
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109068
Jose E. Marchesi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110781
Jose E. Marchesi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |MOVED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110783
Jose E. Marchesi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110783
Jose E. Marchesi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Assignee|unassigned at g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110786
Jose E. Marchesi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110786
Jose E. Marchesi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110786
Bug ID: 110786
Summary: bpf: make use of the V4 byte swap instructions
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110784
Bug ID: 110784
Summary: bpf: make use of the V4 sign-extended move
instructions
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110783
Bug ID: 110783
Summary: bpf; make sure of V4 signed division/modulus
instructions
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110782
Bug ID: 110782
Summary: bpf: make use of the V4 sign-extended load
instructions
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110781
Bug ID: 110781
Summary: bpf: make use of the V4 long-range jump instruction
(jal/gotol)
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110657
Jose E. Marchesi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110657
--- Comment #6 from Jose E. Marchesi ---
Hello Kris.
The commit above (now in gcc master) should fix the issue. Can you please
confirm?
Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110657
--- Comment #4 from Jose E. Marchesi ---
Looks like `combine' is generating paradoxical subregs of mems, which seem to
confuse LRA and these weird incorrect reloads end up being generated. The
easiest fix for this is to make the backend to use
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110657
Jose E. Marchesi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-07-13
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110657
Jose E. Marchesi changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jemarch at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107479
Jose E. Marchesi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107480
Jose E. Marchesi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-04-19
Assignee|unassi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107481
Jose E. Marchesi changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jemarch at gcc dot gnu.org
Last re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107844
Jose E. Marchesi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109558
Jose E. Marchesi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-04-19
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109558
Bug ID: 109558
Summary: bpf: support BTF and DWARF tag annotations for BPF
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107848
Jose E. Marchesi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108293
Jose E. Marchesi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107843
Jose E. Marchesi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107843
Jose E. Marchesi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106773
Jose E. Marchesi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106745
Jose E. Marchesi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108293
--- Comment #3 from Jose E. Marchesi ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Another thing is that at least for all SFmode constant one could use mov
> instead of lddw.
For this I guess we could expand the "I" constraint to cover cons
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106515
--- Comment #6 from Jose E. Marchesi ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> Fixed I assume.
Yes indeed.
Sorry about leaving all these bugs in the "open" state. Only recently I
managed to get my bugzilla accounts consolidated in a
75 matches
Mail list logo
