On 11/27/2017 11:44 AM, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 06:28:24PM +, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 11/21/2017 04:57 AM, James Greenhalgh wrote:
>>> I've finally built up enough courage to start getting my head around this...
>> Can't blame you for avoiding :-) This stuff isn't my
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 03:48:41PM +, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> On 28/10/17 05:08, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On 10/13/2017 02:26 PM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> >> For larger frames the first oddity is that there are now 2 separate params
> >> controlling how probes are generated:
> >>
> >>
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 06:28:24PM +, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/21/2017 04:57 AM, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> > I've finally built up enough courage to start getting my head around this...
> Can't blame you for avoiding :-) This stuff isn't my idea of fun either.
Right, here's where I'm up to...
On 11/27/2017 10:33 AM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
>> On 28/10/17 05:08, Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>>> My hope would be that we simply don't ever use the params. They were
>>> done as much for *you* to experiment with as anything. I'd happy just
>>> delete them as there's essentially
On 11/27/2017 08:48 AM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> On 28/10/17 05:08, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 10/13/2017 02:26 PM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>>> For larger frames the first oddity is that there are now 2 separate params
>>> controlling how probes are generated:
>>>
>>> stack-clash-protection-guard-size
Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
>On 28/10/17 05:08, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>> My hope would be that we simply don't ever use the params. They were
>> done as much for *you* to experiment with as anything. I'd happy just
>> delete them as there's essentially no guard rails to ensure their values
>> are sane.
>
>
On 28/10/17 05:08, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/13/2017 02:26 PM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>> For larger frames the first oddity is that there are now 2 separate params
>> controlling how probes are generated:
>>
>> stack-clash-protection-guard-size (default 12, but set to 16 on AArch64)
>>
On 11/21/2017 04:57 AM, James Greenhalgh wrote:
> I've finally built up enough courage to start getting my head around this...
Can't blame you for avoiding :-) This stuff isn't my idea of fun either.
>
> I see one outstanding issue sitting on this patch version:
>
> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at
I've finally built up enough courage to start getting my head around this...
I see one outstanding issue sitting on this patch version:
On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 05:08:54AM +0100, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/13/2017 02:26 PM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> > --param=stack-clash-protection-probe-interval=13
>
On 10/13/2017 02:26 PM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> Hi,
>
> To continue the review of the AArch64 frame code I tried a few examples
> to figure out what it does now. For initial_adjust <= 63*1024 and
> final_adjust <
> 1024 there are no probes inserted as expected, ie. the vast majority of
>
Hi,
To continue the review of the AArch64 frame code I tried a few examples
to figure out what it does now. For initial_adjust <= 63*1024 and final_adjust <
1024 there are no probes inserted as expected, ie. the vast majority of
functions are unaffected. So that works perfectly.
For larger
Hi,
Sorry for the delay - I finally had a chance to look at this again.
I'll start with alloca:
@@ -15245,6 +15455,28 @@ aarch64_sched_can_speculate_insn (rtx_insn *insn)
}
}
+/* It has been decided that to allow up to 1kb of outgoing argument
+ space to be allocated w/o probing. If
Wilco has done most of the design/implementation review work to-date and
should have state on most of this code.
--
Here's the current aarch64 patch for stack clash protection. It's the
only bits for stack clash protection that haven't been committed to the
trunk.
Looking through my archives
13 matches
Mail list logo
