On Sun, 2018-01-07 at 18:32 +, Lu, Hongjiu wrote:
>
> If I get positive feedbacks from kernel folks with my GCC 7 patches today, I
> will submit my patches for GCC 8 today. After they are checked in, I will
> backport them to GCC 7/6/5/4.9.
To confirm: These seem to work for me and I've
On Sun, 2018-01-07 at 18:32 +, Lu, Hongjiu wrote:
>
> If I get positive feedbacks from kernel folks with my GCC 7 patches today, I
> will submit my patches for GCC 8 today. After they are checked in, I will
> backport them to GCC 7/6/5/4.9.
To confirm: These seem to work for me and I've
On Sun, 2018-01-07 at 18:32 +, Lu, Hongjiu wrote:
>
> > What's the plan for these vs. official GCC? Is that stuff going to part of
> > GCC
> > and if so, which versions of GCC will have that?
>
> If I get positive feedbacks from kernel folks with my GCC 7 patches today, I
> will submit my
On Sun, 2018-01-07 at 18:32 +, Lu, Hongjiu wrote:
>
> > What's the plan for these vs. official GCC? Is that stuff going to part of
> > GCC
> > and if so, which versions of GCC will have that?
>
> If I get positive feedbacks from kernel folks with my GCC 7 patches today, I
> will submit my
Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org>; Andy
> Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net>; Jiri Kosina <ji...@kernel.org>;
> gno...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk
> Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH 13/12] Retpoline vs.
> CONFIG_TRIM_UNUSED_SYMBOLS
>
> On Sun, 7 Jan 2018, Lu, Hongjiu wro
gt; gno...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk
> Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH 13/12] Retpoline vs.
> CONFIG_TRIM_UNUSED_SYMBOLS
>
> On Sun, 7 Jan 2018, Lu, Hongjiu wrote:
>
> > Please checkout patches for GCC 7:
> >
> > https://github.com/hjl-tools/gcc/commits/hjl/indirect/gcc-7-branc
On Sun, 7 Jan 2018, Lu, Hongjiu wrote:
> Please checkout patches for GCC 7:
>
> https://github.com/hjl-tools/gcc/commits/hjl/indirect/gcc-7-branch/master
>
> For GCC trunk:
>
> https://github.com/hjl-tools/gcc/commits/hjl/indirect/master
What's the plan for these vs. official GCC? Is that
On Sun, 7 Jan 2018, Lu, Hongjiu wrote:
> Please checkout patches for GCC 7:
>
> https://github.com/hjl-tools/gcc/commits/hjl/indirect/gcc-7-branch/master
>
> For GCC trunk:
>
> https://github.com/hjl-tools/gcc/commits/hjl/indirect/master
What's the plan for these vs. official GCC? Is that
om>; Rik van Riel <r...@redhat.com>; Peter Zijlstra
> <pet...@infradead.org>; Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net>; Jiri
> Kosina <ji...@kernel.org>; gno...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 13/12] Retpoline vs.
> CONFIG_TRIM_UNUSED_SYMBOLS
>
ndy Lutomirski ; Jiri
> Kosina ; gno...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 13/12] Retpoline vs.
> CONFIG_TRIM_UNUSED_SYMBOLS
>
> On Sun, 2018-01-07 at 15:09 +, Lu, Hongjiu wrote:
> > Sure, I can use __x86_indirect_thunk_rax.
>
> Great, thanks.
>
On Sun, 2018-01-07 at 15:09 +, Lu, Hongjiu wrote:
> Sure, I can use __x86_indirect_thunk_rax.
Great, thanks.
I've made that change on top of your 20171219 patch set which is the
latest I've seen, and pushed it to my tree at
On Sun, 2018-01-07 at 15:09 +, Lu, Hongjiu wrote:
> Sure, I can use __x86_indirect_thunk_rax.
Great, thanks.
I've made that change on top of your 20171219 patch set which is the
latest I've seen, and pushed it to my tree at
on.org>; Tim Chen <tim.c.c...@linux.intel.com>;
> Hansen, Dave <dave.han...@intel.com>; t...@linutronix.de; Kees Cook
> <keesc...@google.com>; Rik van Riel <r...@redhat.com>; Peter Zijlstra
> <pet...@infradead.org>; Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacap
ML ;
> Linus Torvalds ; Greg Kroah-Hartman
> ; Tim Chen ;
> Hansen, Dave ; t...@linutronix.de; Kees Cook
> ; Rik van Riel ; Peter Zijlstra
> ; Andy Lutomirski ; Jiri
> Kosina ; gno...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 13/12] Retpoline vs.
> CONFIG_TRIM_UNUSED_SYMBOLS
On Sun, 2018-01-07 at 00:10 +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> Arjan pointed out that CONFIG_TRIM_UNUSED_SYMBOLS *really* doesn't like
> the dot in the symbols that GCC uses for the thunks.
>
> This seems to work, although my eyes are bleeding just a little bit.
>
> Given this, and the hack we
On Sun, 2018-01-07 at 00:10 +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> Arjan pointed out that CONFIG_TRIM_UNUSED_SYMBOLS *really* doesn't like
> the dot in the symbols that GCC uses for the thunks.
>
> This seems to work, although my eyes are bleeding just a little bit.
>
> Given this, and the hack we
Arjan pointed out that CONFIG_TRIM_UNUSED_SYMBOLS *really* doesn't like
the dot in the symbols that GCC uses for the thunks.
This seems to work, although my eyes are bleeding just a little bit.
Given this, and the hack we already needed for MODVERSIONS, I wonder if
a better approach might be to
Arjan pointed out that CONFIG_TRIM_UNUSED_SYMBOLS *really* doesn't like
the dot in the symbols that GCC uses for the thunks.
This seems to work, although my eyes are bleeding just a little bit.
Given this, and the hack we already needed for MODVERSIONS, I wonder if
a better approach might be to
18 matches
Mail list logo
