From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE6F43856DCA for ; Tue, 25 Oct 2022 17:37:46 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org EE6F43856DCA Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1666719466; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=Vf6YnKiY9SqRz87sVne+2Q00eljSUDEfqnucAIdiAnE=; b=bRqGWe2MQULFB6Swk1QRqNIgREBzxL6Hj1BHEu8hTXwhnamoV09F5gjGv8BjuSJxNnFNEQ LxN9l+xZ/Tr1BrI9l8Tf53reNf2M9kQVmt15zgzIv7xUS5pMuDS80KNdb3riDODnVaoLXf 02VeyAMoA7OLhQAuVqx6R6tNTc8IuMM= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-433-EJPLblypP2af28bQMMNslw-1; Tue, 25 Oct 2022 13:37:45 -0400 X-MC-Unique: EJPLblypP2af28bQMMNslw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5B7E3C0ED5F; Tue, 25 Oct 2022 17:37:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (unknown [10.39.193.252]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FAC840C6EC6; Tue, 25 Oct 2022 17:37:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPS id 29PHbRn6724077 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 25 Oct 2022 19:37:28 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1/Submit) id 29PHbKPT724076; Tue, 25 Oct 2022 19:37:20 +0200 Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2022 19:37:20 +0200 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Ilya Leoshkevich Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] IBM zSystems: Improve storing asan frame_pc Message-ID: Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <20220927002334.651057-1-iii@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20220927002334.651057-1-iii@linux.ibm.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.2 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,KAM_SHORT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 02:23:32AM +0200, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote: > This is a resend of v4 with slightly adjusted commit messages: > > v1: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2019-July/525016.html > v2: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2019-July/525069.html > v3: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-June/548338.html > v4: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-July/549252.html > > It still survives the bootstrap and the regtest on x86_64-redhat-linux, > s390x-redhat-linux and ppc64le-redhat-linux. It also fixes [1]. > > I also tried the approach with moving .LASANPC closer to the function > label and using FUNCTION_BOUNDARY instead of introducing > CODE_LABEL_BOUNDARY, but the problem there is that it's hard to catch > the moment where the function label is written. Architectures can do > it by calling ASM_OUTPUT_LABEL() or assemble_name() in > ASM_DECLARE_FUNCTION_NAME(), ASM_OUTPUT_FUNCTION_LABEL() or > TARGET_ASM_FUNCTION_PROLOGUE(). epiphany_start_function() does that > twice, but passes the same decl to both calls. Note that simply > moving asan_function_start() to final_start_function_1() is not enough, > since an architecture can write something after the function label. > This all means that for this approach to work, all the architectures > need to be adjusted, which looks like an overkill to me. Sorry for the delay. I think the right fix is to follow on s390 and other arches what has been done for x86 in https://gcc.gnu.org/PR98776 That changed not just .LASANPC labels, but also the debug related labels from after the patchable area to before it. And then .LASANPC label can just get FUNCTION_BOUNDARY alignment set in the generic code. Jakub