This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH, Android] Runtime stack protector enabling for Android target


Hi!

There were only trivial merge conflicts like

<<<
  [(match_operand 0 "memory_operand" "")
   (match_operand 1 "memory_operand" "")]
  ""
---
  [(match_operand 0 "memory_operand")
   (match_operand 1 "memory_operand")]
  "!TARGET_HAS_BIONIC"
>>>

Patch attached.

All necessary testing passed. Ok for 4.7?

Changelog:


2012-08-08 Pavel Chupin <pavel.v.chupin@intel.com>

	Backport from mainline r189840 and r187586:

	2012-07-25 Sergey Melnikov <sergey.melnikov@intel.com>

	* config/i386/i386.md (stack_protect_set): Disable the pattern
	for Android since Android libc (bionic) does not provide random
	value for stack protection guard at gs:0x14. Guard value
	will be provided from external symbol (default implementation).
	(stack_protect_set_<mode>): Likewise.
	(stack_protect_test): Likewise.
	(stack_protect_test_<mode>): Likewise.
	* gcc/defaults.h: Define macro TARGET_HAS_BIONIC to 0 - target does
	not have Bionic by default
	* config/linux.h: Redefine macro TARGET_HAS_BIONIC to (OPTION_BIONIC)
	Macro OPTION_BIONIC is defined in this file and provides Bionic
	accessibility status

	2012-05-16  Igor Zamyatin  <igor.zamyatin@intel.com>

	* configure.ac: Stack protector enabling for Android targets.
	* configure: Regenerate.


On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Maxim Kuvyrkov <maxim@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On 8/08/2012, at 9:46 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Igor Zamyatin <izamyatin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like to ask whether stack-protector changes for Android could go to 4.7?
>>>
>>> Pathes are:
>>>
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-05/msg01089.html
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-07/msg01157.html
>>
>> OK, as far as x86 is concerned.
>
> Strictly speaking, these fixes are not for a regression, so do not readily qualify for a release branch.  However, since the patches are no-ops on targets other than x86 and Uros OK'd them for x86 ...
>
> OK, provided that the patches in the above threads apply without conflicts.  If there are conflicts, please repost for review.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Maxim Kuvyrkov
> CodeSourcery / Mentor Graphics
>

Attachment: stack-protector-4_7.patch
Description: Binary data


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]