From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22995 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2018 10:54:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 22975 invoked by uid 89); 16 Jan 2018 10:54:06 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_SHORT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mail-oi0-f67.google.com Received: from mail-oi0-f67.google.com (HELO mail-oi0-f67.google.com) (209.85.218.67) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 10:53:55 +0000 Received: by mail-oi0-f67.google.com with SMTP id t16so10282466oif.10 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 02:53:55 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=7R9J8kva7xq4LtulPXP2j+LIPErV9gn0HjlFsGbXCbI=; b=F39/QBpioS0Hj9gw9oje8QkuZcxNMOF0s8gwsqX/vh4sJDJLksIYyQtIMLhZGQ8gxx t+GBUt/UQ18pPesIadGHJC4Xt749qnIgYoBzyahrjBxfX3u8KOiTlXpShRpdQIRU1/RT swmR8TbtiZJdqtSM0UogdjKN/qNq2gt8Vez7jEZmiBZz8sDMS3rrrt70ugCzTONbRT3h wB8K8qG+sNj7K1Qq0dylg++Q/rSwKE7PTpNqj2J19o6RGkB/DvgoEMbbdx4amUsXz8WR 8TRIE/MiZXY4dXnIRa7mX5hU/AZponpWunzXk8Az/DcRytAwvQYtiIC4b4Cce6M1YW7U v2JA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytf6WlcXdP1U/HsMkhx4O8PdmmcyCG3YLB2pYZmpf8PPhirBJK26 6YX+xN1a/J3atkfheQ0IFUAx2mywoFgqU7CHNNM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBotqzbpmdOwUSDtXCiOQlx9+LM7E1dhSvTfZB1EV1Y7vnsyrNfAx8OR5bzd5cSKEdM7JziEC4DawCOg78x+mxUw= X-Received: by 10.202.6.4 with SMTP id 4mr14537476oig.316.1516100034069; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 02:53:54 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.74.151.42 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Jan 2018 02:53:53 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20180116083447.GA22291@kam.mff.cuni.cz> References: <20180116083447.GA22291@kam.mff.cuni.cz> From: "H.J. Lu" Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 11:07:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] x86: CVE-2017-5715, aka Spectre To: Jan Hubicka Cc: Richard Biener , Rainer Orth , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" , "Uros Bizjak (ubizjak@gmail.com)" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-01/txt/msg01427.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 12:34 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 5:53 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> > On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 3:38 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 12:31 AM, Richard Biener >> >> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 4:08 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> >>>> Now my patch set has been checked into trunk. Here is a patch set >> >>>> to move struct ix86_frame to machine_function on GCC 7, which is >> >>>> needed to backport the patch set to GCC 7: >> >>>> >> >>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg01239.html >> >>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg01240.html >> >>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg01241.html >> >>>> >> >>>> OK for gcc-7-branch? >> >>> >> >>> Yes, backporting is ok - please watch for possible fallout on trunk and make >> >>> sure to adjust the backport accordingly. I plan to do GCC 7.3 RC1 on >> >>> Wednesday now with the final release about a week later if no issue shows >> >>> up. >> >>> >> >> >> >> Backport is blocked by >> >> >> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83838 >> >> >> >> There are many test failures due to lack of comdat support in linker on Solaris. >> >> I can limit these tests to Linux. >> > >> > These are testcase issues and shouldn't block backport to GCC 7. >> >> It makes the option using thunks unusable though, right? Can you simply make >> them hidden on systems without comdat support? That duplicates them per TU >> but at least the feature works. Or those systems should provide the thunks via >> libgcc. >> >> I agree we can followup with a fix for Solaris given lack of a public >> testing machine. > > My memory is bit dim, but I am convinced I was fixing specific errors for comdats > on Solaris, so I think the toolchain supports them in some sort, just is more > restrictive/different from GNU implementation. > > Indeed, i think just producing sorry, unimplemented message is what we should do > if we can't support retpoline on given target. > It still works without comdat. GCC just generate a local thunk in each object file. -- H.J.