I ran a number of tests against this patch on non-ARM platforms and
noticed something weird. The default_speculation_safe_load seems to have
a logic twist. When cmpptr is greater or equal to the upper_bound the
call is considered in-range.
In: gcc/targhooks.c
[..]
do_compare_rtx_and_jump
Hi Richard and Jeff,
Sorry I missed this earlier today, it somehow ended up in my spam folder...
> On Jan 12, 2018, at 10:08 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
> wrote:
>
> On 10/01/18 23:26, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 01/08/2018 09:01 AM, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>>> On Jan 8, 2018, at 8:06 AM, Richard Earns
On 10/01/18 23:26, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 01/08/2018 09:01 AM, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>> On Jan 8, 2018, at 8:06 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/01/18 02:20, Bill Schmidt wrote:
Hi Richard,
Unfortunately, I don't see any way that this will be useful for the ppc
>>>
On 01/08/2018 02:03 PM, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>
> I agree 100% with this approach. I just wanted to raise the point in case
> other architectures have different needs. Power can work around this
> by just ignoring 4 of the 5 arguments. As long as nobody else needs
> *additional* arguments, this s
On 01/09/2018 10:11 AM, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> On Jan 9, 2018, at 4:21 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
> wrote:
>>
>> On 08/01/18 16:01, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>>> On Jan 8, 2018, at 8:06 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
>>> wrote:
On 08/01/18 02:20, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
>
On 01/08/2018 09:01 AM, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> On Jan 8, 2018, at 8:06 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
> wrote:
>>
>> On 08/01/18 02:20, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>>> Hi Richard,
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, I don't see any way that this will be useful for the ppc
>>> targets. We don't
>>> have a way to force
On Jan 9, 2018, at 4:21 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
wrote:
>
> On 08/01/18 16:01, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>> On Jan 8, 2018, at 8:06 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/01/18 02:20, Bill Schmidt wrote:
Hi Richard,
Unfortunately, I don't see any way that this will
On 08/01/18 16:01, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> On Jan 8, 2018, at 8:06 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
> wrote:
>>
>> On 08/01/18 02:20, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>>> Hi Richard,
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, I don't see any way that this will be useful for the ppc
>>> targets. We don't
>>> have a way to force resol
On Jan 8, 2018, at 1:40 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> On 01/08/2018 07:19 AM, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 7, 2018, at 10:47 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>>
>>> On 01/07/2018 07:20 PM, Bill Schmidt wrote:
Hi Richard,
Unfortunately, I don't see any way that this will be useful for the pp
On 01/08/2018 07:19 AM, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>
>> On Jan 7, 2018, at 10:47 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>> On 01/07/2018 07:20 PM, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>>> Hi Richard,
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, I don't see any way that this will be useful for the ppc
>>> targets. We don't
>>> have a way to force resolutio
On Jan 8, 2018, at 9:23 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
wrote:
>
> On 08/01/18 14:19, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 7, 2018, at 10:47 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>>
>>> On 01/07/2018 07:20 PM, Bill Schmidt wrote:
Hi Richard,
Unfortunately, I don't see any way that this will be usefu
On Jan 8, 2018, at 8:06 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
wrote:
>
> On 08/01/18 02:20, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> Unfortunately, I don't see any way that this will be useful for the ppc
>> targets. We don't
>> have a way to force resolution of a condition prior to continuing
>> spe
On 08/01/18 14:19, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>
>> On Jan 7, 2018, at 10:47 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>> On 01/07/2018 07:20 PM, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>>> Hi Richard,
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, I don't see any way that this will be useful for the ppc
>>> targets. We don't
>>> have a way to force resolution of
> On Jan 7, 2018, at 10:47 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> On 01/07/2018 07:20 PM, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> Unfortunately, I don't see any way that this will be useful for the ppc
>> targets. We don't
>> have a way to force resolution of a condition prior to continuing
>> speculation
On 08/01/18 02:20, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> Unfortunately, I don't see any way that this will be useful for the ppc
> targets. We don't
> have a way to force resolution of a condition prior to continuing
> speculation, so this
> will just introduce another comparison that we would
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 5:47 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 01/07/2018 07:20 PM, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> Unfortunately, I don't see any way that this will be useful for the ppc
>> targets. We don't
>> have a way to force resolution of a condition prior to continuing
>> speculation, so
On 01/07/2018 07:20 PM, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> Unfortunately, I don't see any way that this will be useful for the ppc
> targets. We don't
> have a way to force resolution of a condition prior to continuing
> speculation, so this
> will just introduce another comparison that we w
Hi Richard,
Unfortunately, I don't see any way that this will be useful for the ppc
targets. We don't
have a way to force resolution of a condition prior to continuing speculation,
so this
will just introduce another comparison that we would speculate past. For our
mitigation
we will have to
This patch adds generic support for the new builtin
__builtin_load_no_speculate. It provides the overloading of the
different access sizes and a default fall-back expansion for targets
that do not support a mechanism for inhibiting speculation.
* builtin_types.def (BT_FN_I1_CONST_VPTR_CO
19 matches
Mail list logo