* [PATCH] PR middle-end/67220: GCC fails to properly handle libcall symbol visibility of built functions
@ 2015-10-14 16:21 H.J. Lu
2015-10-14 16:46 ` Ramana Radhakrishnan
2015-10-15 8:44 ` Richard Biener
0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: H.J. Lu @ 2015-10-14 16:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-patches
By default, there is no visibility on builtin functions. When there is
explicitly declared visibility on the C library function which a builtin
function fall back on, we should honor the explicit visibility on the
the C library function.
There are 2 issues:
1. We never update visibility of the fall back C library function.
2. init_block_move_fn and init_block_clear_fn used to implement builtin
memcpy and memset generate the library call to memcpy and memset
directly without checking if there is explicitly declared visibility on
them.
This patch updates builtin function with explicit visibility and checks
visibility on builtin memcpy/memset when generating library call.
Tested on Linux/x86-64 without regressions. OK for trunk?
H.J.
---
gcc/c/
PR middle-end/67220
* c-decl.c (diagnose_mismatched_decls): Copy explicit visibility
to builtin function.
gcc/
PR middle-end/67220
* expr.c (init_block_move_fn): Copy visibility from the builtin
memcpy.
(init_block_clear_fn): Copy visibility from the builtin memset.
gcc/testsuite/
PR middle-end/67220
* gcc.target/i386/pr67220-1.c: New test.
* gcc.target/i386/pr67220-2.c: Likewise.
* gcc.target/i386/pr67220-3.c: Likewise.
* gcc.target/i386/pr67220-4.c: Likewise.
* gcc.target/i386/pr67220-5.c: Likewise.
* gcc.target/i386/pr67220-6.c: Likewise.
---
gcc/c/c-decl.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++----
gcc/expr.c | 12 ++++++++++--
gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-1.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-2.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-3.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-4.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-5.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-6.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
8 files changed, 115 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-1.c
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-2.c
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-3.c
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-4.c
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-5.c
create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-6.c
diff --git a/gcc/c/c-decl.c b/gcc/c/c-decl.c
index ce8406a..26460eb 100644
--- a/gcc/c/c-decl.c
+++ b/gcc/c/c-decl.c
@@ -2232,11 +2232,24 @@ diagnose_mismatched_decls (tree newdecl, tree olddecl,
/* warnings */
/* All decls must agree on a visibility. */
if (CODE_CONTAINS_STRUCT (TREE_CODE (newdecl), TS_DECL_WITH_VIS)
- && DECL_VISIBILITY_SPECIFIED (newdecl) && DECL_VISIBILITY_SPECIFIED (olddecl)
- && DECL_VISIBILITY (newdecl) != DECL_VISIBILITY (olddecl))
+ && DECL_VISIBILITY_SPECIFIED (newdecl))
{
- warned |= warning (0, "redeclaration of %q+D with different visibility "
- "(old visibility preserved)", newdecl);
+ if (DECL_VISIBILITY_SPECIFIED (olddecl))
+ {
+ if (DECL_VISIBILITY (newdecl) != DECL_VISIBILITY (olddecl))
+ warned |= warning (0, "redeclaration of %q+D with different "
+ "visibility (old visibility preserved)",
+ newdecl);
+ }
+ else if (TREE_CODE (olddecl) == FUNCTION_DECL
+ && DECL_BUILT_IN (olddecl))
+ {
+ enum built_in_function fncode = DECL_FUNCTION_CODE (olddecl);
+ tree fndecl = builtin_decl_explicit (fncode);
+ gcc_assert (fndecl && !DECL_VISIBILITY_SPECIFIED (fndecl));
+ DECL_VISIBILITY (fndecl) = DECL_VISIBILITY (newdecl);
+ DECL_VISIBILITY_SPECIFIED (fndecl) = 1;
+ }
}
if (TREE_CODE (newdecl) == FUNCTION_DECL)
diff --git a/gcc/expr.c b/gcc/expr.c
index 595324d..a12db96 100644
--- a/gcc/expr.c
+++ b/gcc/expr.c
@@ -1390,7 +1390,11 @@ init_block_move_fn (const char *asmspec)
TREE_PUBLIC (fn) = 1;
DECL_ARTIFICIAL (fn) = 1;
TREE_NOTHROW (fn) = 1;
- DECL_VISIBILITY (fn) = VISIBILITY_DEFAULT;
+ tree fndecl = builtin_decl_explicit (BUILT_IN_MEMCPY);
+ if (fndecl)
+ DECL_VISIBILITY (fn) = DECL_VISIBILITY (fndecl);
+ else
+ DECL_VISIBILITY (fn) = VISIBILITY_DEFAULT;
DECL_VISIBILITY_SPECIFIED (fn) = 1;
attr_args = build_tree_list (NULL_TREE, build_string (1, "1"));
@@ -2846,7 +2850,11 @@ init_block_clear_fn (const char *asmspec)
TREE_PUBLIC (fn) = 1;
DECL_ARTIFICIAL (fn) = 1;
TREE_NOTHROW (fn) = 1;
- DECL_VISIBILITY (fn) = VISIBILITY_DEFAULT;
+ tree fndecl = builtin_decl_explicit (BUILT_IN_MEMSET);
+ if (fndecl)
+ DECL_VISIBILITY (fn) = DECL_VISIBILITY (fndecl);
+ else
+ DECL_VISIBILITY (fn) = VISIBILITY_DEFAULT;
DECL_VISIBILITY_SPECIFIED (fn) = 1;
block_clear_fn = fn;
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-1.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-1.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..06af0ed
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-1.c
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+/* { dg-do compile { target fpic } } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -fPIC" } */
+
+typedef __SIZE_TYPE__ size_t;
+extern void *memcpy (void *, const void *, size_t);
+extern void *memcpy (void *, const void *, size_t)
+ __attribute__ ((visibility ("hidden")));
+
+void
+bar (void *d, void *s, size_t n)
+{
+ memcpy (d, s, n);
+}
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "memcpy@PLT" } } */
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-2.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-2.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..71e1d1e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-2.c
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+/* { dg-do compile { target fpic } } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -fPIC" } */
+
+typedef __SIZE_TYPE__ size_t;
+extern void *memset (void *, int, size_t);
+extern void *memset (void *, int, size_t)
+ __attribute__ ((visibility ("hidden")));
+
+void
+bar (void *s, size_t n)
+{
+ memset (s, '\0', n);
+}
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "memset@PLT" } } */
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-3.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-3.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..fa54530
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-3.c
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+/* { dg-do compile { target fpic } } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -fPIC" } */
+
+typedef __SIZE_TYPE__ size_t;
+extern void *memcpy (void *, const void *, size_t)
+ __attribute__ ((visibility ("hidden")));
+extern void *memcpy (void *, const void *, size_t);
+
+void
+bar (void *d, void *s, size_t n)
+{
+ __builtin_memcpy (d, s, n);
+}
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "memcpy@PLT" } } */
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-4.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-4.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9ce02f4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-4.c
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+/* { dg-do compile { target fpic } } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -fPIC" } */
+
+typedef __SIZE_TYPE__ size_t;
+extern void *memset (void *, int, size_t)
+ __attribute__ ((visibility ("hidden")));
+extern void *memset (void *, int, size_t);
+
+void
+bar (void *s, size_t n)
+{
+ __builtin_memset (s, '\0', n);
+}
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "memset@PLT" } } */
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-5.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-5.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e2c8ba3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-5.c
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+/* { dg-do compile { target fpic } } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -fPIC" } */
+
+extern int strcmp (const char *, const char *);
+extern int strcmp (const char *, const char *)
+ __attribute__ ((visibility ("hidden")));
+
+int
+bar (const char *d, const char *s)
+{
+ return __builtin_strcmp (d, s);
+}
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "strcmp@PLT" } } */
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-6.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-6.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c83d4c2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-6.c
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+/* { dg-do compile { target fpic } } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -fPIC" } */
+
+extern int strcmp (const char *, const char *)
+ __attribute__ ((visibility ("hidden")));
+extern int strcmp (const char *, const char *);
+
+int
+bar (const char *d, const char *s)
+{
+ return __builtin_strcmp (d, s);
+}
+
+/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "strcmp@PLT" } } */
--
2.4.3
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] PR middle-end/67220: GCC fails to properly handle libcall symbol visibility of built functions
2015-10-14 16:21 [PATCH] PR middle-end/67220: GCC fails to properly handle libcall symbol visibility of built functions H.J. Lu
@ 2015-10-14 16:46 ` Ramana Radhakrishnan
2015-10-14 16:51 ` H.J. Lu
2015-10-15 8:44 ` Richard Biener
1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Ramana Radhakrishnan @ 2015-10-14 16:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: H.J. Lu; +Cc: gcc-patches
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 5:21 PM, H.J. Lu <hongjiu.lu@intel.com> wrote:
> ---
> gcc/c/
>
> PR middle-end/67220
> * c-decl.c (diagnose_mismatched_decls): Copy explicit visibility
> to builtin function.
>
> gcc/
>
> PR middle-end/67220
> * expr.c (init_block_move_fn): Copy visibility from the builtin
> memcpy.
> (init_block_clear_fn): Copy visibility from the builtin memset.
>
> gcc/testsuite/
>
> PR middle-end/67220
> * gcc.target/i386/pr67220-1.c: New test.
> * gcc.target/i386/pr67220-2.c: Likewise.
> * gcc.target/i386/pr67220-3.c: Likewise.
> * gcc.target/i386/pr67220-4.c: Likewise.
> * gcc.target/i386/pr67220-5.c: Likewise.
> * gcc.target/i386/pr67220-6.c: Likewise.
Why aren't these tests in gcc.dg ? The problem affects all targets
not just x86.
Thanks,
Ramana
> ---
> gcc/c/c-decl.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++----
> gcc/expr.c | 12 ++++++++++--
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-1.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-2.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-3.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-4.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-5.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-6.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
> 8 files changed, 115 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-1.c
> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-2.c
> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-3.c
> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-4.c
> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-5.c
> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-6.c
>
> diff --git a/gcc/c/c-decl.c b/gcc/c/c-decl.c
> index ce8406a..26460eb 100644
> --- a/gcc/c/c-decl.c
> +++ b/gcc/c/c-decl.c
> @@ -2232,11 +2232,24 @@ diagnose_mismatched_decls (tree newdecl, tree olddecl,
> /* warnings */
> /* All decls must agree on a visibility. */
> if (CODE_CONTAINS_STRUCT (TREE_CODE (newdecl), TS_DECL_WITH_VIS)
> - && DECL_VISIBILITY_SPECIFIED (newdecl) && DECL_VISIBILITY_SPECIFIED (olddecl)
> - && DECL_VISIBILITY (newdecl) != DECL_VISIBILITY (olddecl))
> + && DECL_VISIBILITY_SPECIFIED (newdecl))
> {
> - warned |= warning (0, "redeclaration of %q+D with different visibility "
> - "(old visibility preserved)", newdecl);
> + if (DECL_VISIBILITY_SPECIFIED (olddecl))
> + {
> + if (DECL_VISIBILITY (newdecl) != DECL_VISIBILITY (olddecl))
> + warned |= warning (0, "redeclaration of %q+D with different "
> + "visibility (old visibility preserved)",
> + newdecl);
> + }
> + else if (TREE_CODE (olddecl) == FUNCTION_DECL
> + && DECL_BUILT_IN (olddecl))
> + {
> + enum built_in_function fncode = DECL_FUNCTION_CODE (olddecl);
> + tree fndecl = builtin_decl_explicit (fncode);
> + gcc_assert (fndecl && !DECL_VISIBILITY_SPECIFIED (fndecl));
> + DECL_VISIBILITY (fndecl) = DECL_VISIBILITY (newdecl);
> + DECL_VISIBILITY_SPECIFIED (fndecl) = 1;
> + }
> }
>
> if (TREE_CODE (newdecl) == FUNCTION_DECL)
> diff --git a/gcc/expr.c b/gcc/expr.c
> index 595324d..a12db96 100644
> --- a/gcc/expr.c
> +++ b/gcc/expr.c
> @@ -1390,7 +1390,11 @@ init_block_move_fn (const char *asmspec)
> TREE_PUBLIC (fn) = 1;
> DECL_ARTIFICIAL (fn) = 1;
> TREE_NOTHROW (fn) = 1;
> - DECL_VISIBILITY (fn) = VISIBILITY_DEFAULT;
> + tree fndecl = builtin_decl_explicit (BUILT_IN_MEMCPY);
> + if (fndecl)
> + DECL_VISIBILITY (fn) = DECL_VISIBILITY (fndecl);
> + else
> + DECL_VISIBILITY (fn) = VISIBILITY_DEFAULT;
> DECL_VISIBILITY_SPECIFIED (fn) = 1;
>
> attr_args = build_tree_list (NULL_TREE, build_string (1, "1"));
> @@ -2846,7 +2850,11 @@ init_block_clear_fn (const char *asmspec)
> TREE_PUBLIC (fn) = 1;
> DECL_ARTIFICIAL (fn) = 1;
> TREE_NOTHROW (fn) = 1;
> - DECL_VISIBILITY (fn) = VISIBILITY_DEFAULT;
> + tree fndecl = builtin_decl_explicit (BUILT_IN_MEMSET);
> + if (fndecl)
> + DECL_VISIBILITY (fn) = DECL_VISIBILITY (fndecl);
> + else
> + DECL_VISIBILITY (fn) = VISIBILITY_DEFAULT;
> DECL_VISIBILITY_SPECIFIED (fn) = 1;
>
> block_clear_fn = fn;
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-1.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-1.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..06af0ed
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-1.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile { target fpic } } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -fPIC" } */
> +
> +typedef __SIZE_TYPE__ size_t;
> +extern void *memcpy (void *, const void *, size_t);
> +extern void *memcpy (void *, const void *, size_t)
> + __attribute__ ((visibility ("hidden")));
> +
> +void
> +bar (void *d, void *s, size_t n)
> +{
> + memcpy (d, s, n);
> +}
> +
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "memcpy@PLT" } } */
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-2.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-2.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..71e1d1e
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-2.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile { target fpic } } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -fPIC" } */
> +
> +typedef __SIZE_TYPE__ size_t;
> +extern void *memset (void *, int, size_t);
> +extern void *memset (void *, int, size_t)
> + __attribute__ ((visibility ("hidden")));
> +
> +void
> +bar (void *s, size_t n)
> +{
> + memset (s, '\0', n);
> +}
> +
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "memset@PLT" } } */
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-3.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-3.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..fa54530
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-3.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile { target fpic } } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -fPIC" } */
> +
> +typedef __SIZE_TYPE__ size_t;
> +extern void *memcpy (void *, const void *, size_t)
> + __attribute__ ((visibility ("hidden")));
> +extern void *memcpy (void *, const void *, size_t);
> +
> +void
> +bar (void *d, void *s, size_t n)
> +{
> + __builtin_memcpy (d, s, n);
> +}
> +
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "memcpy@PLT" } } */
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-4.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-4.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..9ce02f4
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-4.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile { target fpic } } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -fPIC" } */
> +
> +typedef __SIZE_TYPE__ size_t;
> +extern void *memset (void *, int, size_t)
> + __attribute__ ((visibility ("hidden")));
> +extern void *memset (void *, int, size_t);
> +
> +void
> +bar (void *s, size_t n)
> +{
> + __builtin_memset (s, '\0', n);
> +}
> +
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "memset@PLT" } } */
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-5.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-5.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..e2c8ba3
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-5.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile { target fpic } } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -fPIC" } */
> +
> +extern int strcmp (const char *, const char *);
> +extern int strcmp (const char *, const char *)
> + __attribute__ ((visibility ("hidden")));
> +
> +int
> +bar (const char *d, const char *s)
> +{
> + return __builtin_strcmp (d, s);
> +}
> +
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "strcmp@PLT" } } */
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-6.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-6.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..c83d4c2
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-6.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile { target fpic } } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -fPIC" } */
> +
> +extern int strcmp (const char *, const char *)
> + __attribute__ ((visibility ("hidden")));
> +extern int strcmp (const char *, const char *);
> +
> +int
> +bar (const char *d, const char *s)
> +{
> + return __builtin_strcmp (d, s);
> +}
> +
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "strcmp@PLT" } } */
> --
> 2.4.3
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] PR middle-end/67220: GCC fails to properly handle libcall symbol visibility of built functions
2015-10-14 16:46 ` Ramana Radhakrishnan
@ 2015-10-14 16:51 ` H.J. Lu
2015-10-14 17:17 ` Ramana Radhakrishnan
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: H.J. Lu @ 2015-10-14 16:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ramana Radhakrishnan; +Cc: gcc-patches
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
<ramana.gcc@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 5:21 PM, H.J. Lu <hongjiu.lu@intel.com> wrote:
>
>> ---
>> gcc/c/
>>
>> PR middle-end/67220
>> * c-decl.c (diagnose_mismatched_decls): Copy explicit visibility
>> to builtin function.
>>
>> gcc/
>>
>> PR middle-end/67220
>> * expr.c (init_block_move_fn): Copy visibility from the builtin
>> memcpy.
>> (init_block_clear_fn): Copy visibility from the builtin memset.
>>
>> gcc/testsuite/
>>
>> PR middle-end/67220
>> * gcc.target/i386/pr67220-1.c: New test.
>> * gcc.target/i386/pr67220-2.c: Likewise.
>> * gcc.target/i386/pr67220-3.c: Likewise.
>> * gcc.target/i386/pr67220-4.c: Likewise.
>> * gcc.target/i386/pr67220-5.c: Likewise.
>> * gcc.target/i386/pr67220-6.c: Likewise.
>
> Why aren't these tests in gcc.dg ? The problem affects all targets
> not just x86.
>
If I move tests to gcc.dg, would you mind updating them to verify
that they pass on arm?
--
H.J.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] PR middle-end/67220: GCC fails to properly handle libcall symbol visibility of built functions
2015-10-14 16:51 ` H.J. Lu
@ 2015-10-14 17:17 ` Ramana Radhakrishnan
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Ramana Radhakrishnan @ 2015-10-14 17:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: H.J. Lu; +Cc: gcc-patches
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 5:51 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
> <ramana.gcc@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 5:21 PM, H.J. Lu <hongjiu.lu@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>>> ---
>>> gcc/c/
>>>
>>> PR middle-end/67220
>>> * c-decl.c (diagnose_mismatched_decls): Copy explicit visibility
>>> to builtin function.
>>>
>>> gcc/
>>>
>>> PR middle-end/67220
>>> * expr.c (init_block_move_fn): Copy visibility from the builtin
>>> memcpy.
>>> (init_block_clear_fn): Copy visibility from the builtin memset.
>>>
>>> gcc/testsuite/
>>>
>>> PR middle-end/67220
>>> * gcc.target/i386/pr67220-1.c: New test.
>>> * gcc.target/i386/pr67220-2.c: Likewise.
>>> * gcc.target/i386/pr67220-3.c: Likewise.
>>> * gcc.target/i386/pr67220-4.c: Likewise.
>>> * gcc.target/i386/pr67220-5.c: Likewise.
>>> * gcc.target/i386/pr67220-6.c: Likewise.
>>
>> Why aren't these tests in gcc.dg ? The problem affects all targets
>> not just x86.
>>
>
> If I move tests to gcc.dg, would you mind updating them to verify
> that they pass on arm?
It's not just a question of ARM. This affects all targets that support
symbol visibility in shared libraries ... please do the math as to how
many targets are affected. Now reading the test even more, it appears
that you also need a dg-require-visibility so that this test is run on
all targets that support symbol visibility.
The test as written uses target_fpic - target-supports.exp does not
have anything ARM specific about handling this - there is some m68k ,
so it should just work on any target that supports symbol visibility.
If it doesn't, that target has an issue and then folks interested in
that target will do something about it. Even if you don't fix the
issue on every target, please have the courtesy of letting them find
it in some sort of automatic manner rather than auditing every single
commit in every gcc.target directory.
regards
Ramana
>
>
> --
> H.J.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] PR middle-end/67220: GCC fails to properly handle libcall symbol visibility of built functions
2015-10-14 16:21 [PATCH] PR middle-end/67220: GCC fails to properly handle libcall symbol visibility of built functions H.J. Lu
2015-10-14 16:46 ` Ramana Radhakrishnan
@ 2015-10-15 8:44 ` Richard Biener
2015-10-15 10:38 ` H.J. Lu
1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Richard Biener @ 2015-10-15 8:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: H.J. Lu; +Cc: GCC Patches
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 6:21 PM, H.J. Lu <hongjiu.lu@intel.com> wrote:
> By default, there is no visibility on builtin functions. When there is
> explicitly declared visibility on the C library function which a builtin
> function fall back on, we should honor the explicit visibility on the
> the C library function.
>
> There are 2 issues:
>
> 1. We never update visibility of the fall back C library function.
> 2. init_block_move_fn and init_block_clear_fn used to implement builtin
> memcpy and memset generate the library call to memcpy and memset
> directly without checking if there is explicitly declared visibility on
> them.
>
> This patch updates builtin function with explicit visibility and checks
> visibility on builtin memcpy/memset when generating library call.
>
> Tested on Linux/x86-64 without regressions. OK for trunk?
Doesn't the C++ FE have the same issue?
>
> H.J.
> ---
> gcc/c/
>
> PR middle-end/67220
> * c-decl.c (diagnose_mismatched_decls): Copy explicit visibility
> to builtin function.
>
> gcc/
>
> PR middle-end/67220
> * expr.c (init_block_move_fn): Copy visibility from the builtin
> memcpy.
> (init_block_clear_fn): Copy visibility from the builtin memset.
>
> gcc/testsuite/
>
> PR middle-end/67220
> * gcc.target/i386/pr67220-1.c: New test.
> * gcc.target/i386/pr67220-2.c: Likewise.
> * gcc.target/i386/pr67220-3.c: Likewise.
> * gcc.target/i386/pr67220-4.c: Likewise.
> * gcc.target/i386/pr67220-5.c: Likewise.
> * gcc.target/i386/pr67220-6.c: Likewise.
> ---
> gcc/c/c-decl.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++----
> gcc/expr.c | 12 ++++++++++--
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-1.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-2.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-3.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-4.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-5.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-6.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
> 8 files changed, 115 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-1.c
> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-2.c
> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-3.c
> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-4.c
> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-5.c
> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-6.c
>
> diff --git a/gcc/c/c-decl.c b/gcc/c/c-decl.c
> index ce8406a..26460eb 100644
> --- a/gcc/c/c-decl.c
> +++ b/gcc/c/c-decl.c
> @@ -2232,11 +2232,24 @@ diagnose_mismatched_decls (tree newdecl, tree olddecl,
> /* warnings */
> /* All decls must agree on a visibility. */
> if (CODE_CONTAINS_STRUCT (TREE_CODE (newdecl), TS_DECL_WITH_VIS)
> - && DECL_VISIBILITY_SPECIFIED (newdecl) && DECL_VISIBILITY_SPECIFIED (olddecl)
> - && DECL_VISIBILITY (newdecl) != DECL_VISIBILITY (olddecl))
> + && DECL_VISIBILITY_SPECIFIED (newdecl))
> {
> - warned |= warning (0, "redeclaration of %q+D with different visibility "
> - "(old visibility preserved)", newdecl);
> + if (DECL_VISIBILITY_SPECIFIED (olddecl))
> + {
> + if (DECL_VISIBILITY (newdecl) != DECL_VISIBILITY (olddecl))
> + warned |= warning (0, "redeclaration of %q+D with different "
> + "visibility (old visibility preserved)",
> + newdecl);
> + }
> + else if (TREE_CODE (olddecl) == FUNCTION_DECL
> + && DECL_BUILT_IN (olddecl))
> + {
> + enum built_in_function fncode = DECL_FUNCTION_CODE (olddecl);
> + tree fndecl = builtin_decl_explicit (fncode);
> + gcc_assert (fndecl && !DECL_VISIBILITY_SPECIFIED (fndecl));
> + DECL_VISIBILITY (fndecl) = DECL_VISIBILITY (newdecl);
> + DECL_VISIBILITY_SPECIFIED (fndecl) = 1;
> + }
> }
>
> if (TREE_CODE (newdecl) == FUNCTION_DECL)
> diff --git a/gcc/expr.c b/gcc/expr.c
> index 595324d..a12db96 100644
> --- a/gcc/expr.c
> +++ b/gcc/expr.c
> @@ -1390,7 +1390,11 @@ init_block_move_fn (const char *asmspec)
> TREE_PUBLIC (fn) = 1;
> DECL_ARTIFICIAL (fn) = 1;
> TREE_NOTHROW (fn) = 1;
> - DECL_VISIBILITY (fn) = VISIBILITY_DEFAULT;
> + tree fndecl = builtin_decl_explicit (BUILT_IN_MEMCPY);
> + if (fndecl)
> + DECL_VISIBILITY (fn) = DECL_VISIBILITY (fndecl);
> + else
> + DECL_VISIBILITY (fn) = VISIBILITY_DEFAULT;
> DECL_VISIBILITY_SPECIFIED (fn) = 1;
>
> attr_args = build_tree_list (NULL_TREE, build_string (1, "1"));
> @@ -2846,7 +2850,11 @@ init_block_clear_fn (const char *asmspec)
> TREE_PUBLIC (fn) = 1;
> DECL_ARTIFICIAL (fn) = 1;
> TREE_NOTHROW (fn) = 1;
> - DECL_VISIBILITY (fn) = VISIBILITY_DEFAULT;
> + tree fndecl = builtin_decl_explicit (BUILT_IN_MEMSET);
> + if (fndecl)
> + DECL_VISIBILITY (fn) = DECL_VISIBILITY (fndecl);
> + else
> + DECL_VISIBILITY (fn) = VISIBILITY_DEFAULT;
> DECL_VISIBILITY_SPECIFIED (fn) = 1;
>
> block_clear_fn = fn;
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-1.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-1.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..06af0ed
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-1.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile { target fpic } } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -fPIC" } */
> +
> +typedef __SIZE_TYPE__ size_t;
> +extern void *memcpy (void *, const void *, size_t);
> +extern void *memcpy (void *, const void *, size_t)
> + __attribute__ ((visibility ("hidden")));
> +
> +void
> +bar (void *d, void *s, size_t n)
> +{
> + memcpy (d, s, n);
> +}
> +
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "memcpy@PLT" } } */
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-2.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-2.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..71e1d1e
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-2.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile { target fpic } } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -fPIC" } */
> +
> +typedef __SIZE_TYPE__ size_t;
> +extern void *memset (void *, int, size_t);
> +extern void *memset (void *, int, size_t)
> + __attribute__ ((visibility ("hidden")));
> +
> +void
> +bar (void *s, size_t n)
> +{
> + memset (s, '\0', n);
> +}
> +
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "memset@PLT" } } */
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-3.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-3.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..fa54530
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-3.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile { target fpic } } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -fPIC" } */
> +
> +typedef __SIZE_TYPE__ size_t;
> +extern void *memcpy (void *, const void *, size_t)
> + __attribute__ ((visibility ("hidden")));
> +extern void *memcpy (void *, const void *, size_t);
> +
> +void
> +bar (void *d, void *s, size_t n)
> +{
> + __builtin_memcpy (d, s, n);
> +}
> +
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "memcpy@PLT" } } */
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-4.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-4.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..9ce02f4
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-4.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile { target fpic } } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -fPIC" } */
> +
> +typedef __SIZE_TYPE__ size_t;
> +extern void *memset (void *, int, size_t)
> + __attribute__ ((visibility ("hidden")));
> +extern void *memset (void *, int, size_t);
> +
> +void
> +bar (void *s, size_t n)
> +{
> + __builtin_memset (s, '\0', n);
> +}
> +
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "memset@PLT" } } */
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-5.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-5.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..e2c8ba3
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-5.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile { target fpic } } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -fPIC" } */
> +
> +extern int strcmp (const char *, const char *);
> +extern int strcmp (const char *, const char *)
> + __attribute__ ((visibility ("hidden")));
> +
> +int
> +bar (const char *d, const char *s)
> +{
> + return __builtin_strcmp (d, s);
> +}
> +
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "strcmp@PLT" } } */
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-6.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-6.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..c83d4c2
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr67220-6.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
> +/* { dg-do compile { target fpic } } */
> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -fPIC" } */
> +
> +extern int strcmp (const char *, const char *)
> + __attribute__ ((visibility ("hidden")));
> +extern int strcmp (const char *, const char *);
> +
> +int
> +bar (const char *d, const char *s)
> +{
> + return __builtin_strcmp (d, s);
> +}
> +
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "strcmp@PLT" } } */
> --
> 2.4.3
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] PR middle-end/67220: GCC fails to properly handle libcall symbol visibility of built functions
2015-10-15 8:44 ` Richard Biener
@ 2015-10-15 10:38 ` H.J. Lu
2015-10-20 23:43 ` Bernd Schmidt
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: H.J. Lu @ 2015-10-15 10:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Richard Biener; +Cc: GCC Patches
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 1:44 AM, Richard Biener
<richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 6:21 PM, H.J. Lu <hongjiu.lu@intel.com> wrote:
>> By default, there is no visibility on builtin functions. When there is
>> explicitly declared visibility on the C library function which a builtin
>> function fall back on, we should honor the explicit visibility on the
>> the C library function.
>>
>> There are 2 issues:
>>
>> 1. We never update visibility of the fall back C library function.
>> 2. init_block_move_fn and init_block_clear_fn used to implement builtin
>> memcpy and memset generate the library call to memcpy and memset
>> directly without checking if there is explicitly declared visibility on
>> them.
>>
>> This patch updates builtin function with explicit visibility and checks
>> visibility on builtin memcpy/memset when generating library call.
>>
>> Tested on Linux/x86-64 without regressions. OK for trunk?
>
> Doesn't the C++ FE have the same issue?
>
Unlike gcc, visibility triggers a warning in g++:
[hjl@gnu-tools-1 pr67220]$ cat memcpy.i
typedef unsigned long size_t;
extern void *memcpy(void *dest, const void *src, size_t n)
__attribute__ ((visibility ("hidden")));
void
bar (void *d, void *s, size_t n)
{
memcpy (d, s, n);
}
[hjl@gnu-tools-1 pr67220]$ make memcpy.s
/export/build/gnu/gcc/build-x86_64-linux/gcc/xg++
-B/export/build/gnu/gcc/build-x86_64-linux/gcc/ -O2 -fPIC -S memcpy.i
memcpy.i:2:14: warning: ‘void* memcpy(void*, const void*, size_t)’:
visibility attribute ignored because it conflicts with previous
declaration [-Wattributes]
extern void *memcpy(void *dest, const void *src, size_t n)
^
<built-in>: note: previous declaration of ‘void* memcpy(void*, const
void*, size_t)’
[hjl@gnu-tools-1 pr67220]$
Since those fallback functions are in the C library, it is very
unlikely they can be hidden in C++. They are mostly likely
to happen inside of the C library.
--
H.J.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] PR middle-end/67220: GCC fails to properly handle libcall symbol visibility of built functions
2015-10-15 10:38 ` H.J. Lu
@ 2015-10-20 23:43 ` Bernd Schmidt
2015-10-21 3:42 ` H.J. Lu
2016-01-15 18:44 ` H.J. Lu
0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Bernd Schmidt @ 2015-10-20 23:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: H.J. Lu, Richard Biener; +Cc: GCC Patches, Jason Merrill
On 10/15/2015 12:37 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 1:44 AM, Richard Biener
> <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 6:21 PM, H.J. Lu <hongjiu.lu@intel.com> wrote:
>>> By default, there is no visibility on builtin functions. When there is
>>> explicitly declared visibility on the C library function which a builtin
>>> function fall back on, we should honor the explicit visibility on the
>>> the C library function.
>> Doesn't the C++ FE have the same issue?
>>
>
> Unlike gcc, visibility triggers a warning in g++:
>
> memcpy.i:2:14: warning: ‘void* memcpy(void*, const void*, size_t)’:
> visibility attribute ignored because it conflicts with previous
> declaration [-Wattributes]
> extern void *memcpy(void *dest, const void *src, size_t n)
> ^
> <built-in>: note: previous declaration of ‘void* memcpy(void*, const
> void*, size_t)’
> [hjl@gnu-tools-1 pr67220]$
I see no good reason for C and C++ to have different behaviour here. It
looks like the C++ frontend sets DECL_VISIBILITY_SPECIFIED to 1 for
builtins, causing the above behaviour. Cc'ing Jason, but I think the C++
frontend should be changed not to set D_V_S and have the same changes as
the C frontend for merging the visibilities.
Other than that I don't see a problem with the concept. However, I also
agree that the tests should not be i386 specific.
One final question - it would seem that glibc is currently not affected
by this problem (at least I'm not seeing memcpy@plt calls in the binary
on my system), so how come this has become an issue now?
Bernd
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] PR middle-end/67220: GCC fails to properly handle libcall symbol visibility of built functions
2015-10-20 23:43 ` Bernd Schmidt
@ 2015-10-21 3:42 ` H.J. Lu
2016-01-15 18:44 ` H.J. Lu
1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: H.J. Lu @ 2015-10-21 3:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bernd Schmidt; +Cc: Richard Biener, GCC Patches, Jason Merrill
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Bernd Schmidt <bschmidt@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 10/15/2015 12:37 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 1:44 AM, Richard Biener
>> <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 6:21 PM, H.J. Lu <hongjiu.lu@intel.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> By default, there is no visibility on builtin functions. When there is
>>>> explicitly declared visibility on the C library function which a builtin
>>>> function fall back on, we should honor the explicit visibility on the
>>>> the C library function.
>
>
>>> Doesn't the C++ FE have the same issue?
>>>
>>
>> Unlike gcc, visibility triggers a warning in g++:
>>
>> memcpy.i:2:14: warning: ‘void* memcpy(void*, const void*, size_t)’:
>> visibility attribute ignored because it conflicts with previous
>> declaration [-Wattributes]
>> extern void *memcpy(void *dest, const void *src, size_t n)
>> ^
>> <built-in>: note: previous declaration of ‘void* memcpy(void*, const
>> void*, size_t)’
>> [hjl@gnu-tools-1 pr67220]$
>
>
> I see no good reason for C and C++ to have different behaviour here. It
> looks like the C++ frontend sets DECL_VISIBILITY_SPECIFIED to 1 for
> builtins, causing the above behaviour. Cc'ing Jason, but I think the C++
> frontend should be changed not to set D_V_S and have the same changes as the
> C frontend for merging the visibilities.
>
> Other than that I don't see a problem with the concept. However, I also
> agree that the tests should not be i386 specific.
Sure. Just add target-specific scan-assembler-not.
> One final question - it would seem that glibc is currently not affected by
> this problem (at least I'm not seeing memcpy@plt calls in the binary on my
> system), so how come this has become an issue now?
>
>
R_386_PLT32 only shows in .o files. There are many of them in
libc_pic.os.
--
H.J.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] PR middle-end/67220: GCC fails to properly handle libcall symbol visibility of built functions
2015-10-20 23:43 ` Bernd Schmidt
2015-10-21 3:42 ` H.J. Lu
@ 2016-01-15 18:44 ` H.J. Lu
1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: H.J. Lu @ 2016-01-15 18:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bernd Schmidt; +Cc: Richard Biener, GCC Patches, Jason Merrill
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Bernd Schmidt <bschmidt@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 10/15/2015 12:37 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 1:44 AM, Richard Biener
>> <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 6:21 PM, H.J. Lu <hongjiu.lu@intel.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> By default, there is no visibility on builtin functions. When there is
>>>> explicitly declared visibility on the C library function which a builtin
>>>> function fall back on, we should honor the explicit visibility on the
>>>> the C library function.
>
>
>>> Doesn't the C++ FE have the same issue?
>>>
>>
>> Unlike gcc, visibility triggers a warning in g++:
>>
>> memcpy.i:2:14: warning: ‘void* memcpy(void*, const void*, size_t)’:
>> visibility attribute ignored because it conflicts with previous
>> declaration [-Wattributes]
>> extern void *memcpy(void *dest, const void *src, size_t n)
>> ^
>> <built-in>: note: previous declaration of ‘void* memcpy(void*, const
>> void*, size_t)’
>> [hjl@gnu-tools-1 pr67220]$
>
>
> I see no good reason for C and C++ to have different behaviour here. It
> looks like the C++ frontend sets DECL_VISIBILITY_SPECIFIED to 1 for
> builtins, causing the above behaviour. Cc'ing Jason, but I think the C++
> frontend should be changed not to set D_V_S and have the same changes as the
> C frontend for merging the visibilities.
>
What should we do with C++ front-end?
--
H.J.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-01-15 18:44 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2015-10-14 16:21 [PATCH] PR middle-end/67220: GCC fails to properly handle libcall symbol visibility of built functions H.J. Lu
2015-10-14 16:46 ` Ramana Radhakrishnan
2015-10-14 16:51 ` H.J. Lu
2015-10-14 17:17 ` Ramana Radhakrishnan
2015-10-15 8:44 ` Richard Biener
2015-10-15 10:38 ` H.J. Lu
2015-10-20 23:43 ` Bernd Schmidt
2015-10-21 3:42 ` H.J. Lu
2016-01-15 18:44 ` H.J. Lu
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).