search for: anywheere

Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "anywheere".

Did you mean: anywhere
2018 Feb 07
0
retpoline mitigation and 6.0
...on't have to do this > whole thing yet again) we'll change the external thunk names to match what > GCC is using. Hopefully this doesn't come back to bite us. =] > What name do we use for when the target address is pushed onto the stack? What are the semantics? Is there a spec anywheere? LLVM only needs this on 32-bit x86, but we do kind of need an answer before we update all of our branches with new names..... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180207...
2018 Feb 07
2
retpoline mitigation and 6.0
...whole thing yet again) we'll change the external thunk names > > to match what GCC is using. Hopefully this doesn't come back to > > bite us. =] > > > What name do we use for when the target address is pushed onto the > stack? What are the semantics? Is there a spec anywheere? > > LLVM only needs this on 32-bit x86, but we do kind of need an answer > before we update all of our branches with new names.... That would be __x86_indirect_thunk but the kernel doesn't use it. We use -mindirect-branch-register and only ever expect the compiler to use the register...
2018 Feb 07
4
retpoline mitigation and 6.0
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 2:56 PM David Woodhouse <dwmw2 at infradead.org> wrote: > On Tue, 2018-02-06 at 22:08 +0000, Chandler Carruth wrote: > > So, I was waiting to hear a definitive response on whether using aliases > is hard, and didn't see one here, which is why I haven't responded further. > > However, a colleauge pointed me at an LKML thread where it seems
2018 Feb 07
0
retpoline mitigation and 6.0
...to do this > whole thing yet again) we'll change the external thunk names to match what > GCC is using. Hopefully this doesn't come back to bite us. =] > > > What name do we use for when the target address is pushed onto the stack? > What are the semantics? Is there a spec anywheere? > > LLVM only needs this on 32-bit x86, but we do kind of need an answer > before we update all of our branches with new names.... > > > That would be __x86_indirect_thunk but the kernel doesn't use it. We use > -mindirect-branch-register and only ever expect the compiler...