On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 10:17:41AM +0000, Sudakshina Das wrote: > Hi Kyrill > > On 12/03/2019 12:03, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: > > Hi Sudi, > > > > On 2/22/19 10:45 AM, Sudakshina Das wrote: > >> Hi > >> > >> This patch documents the addition of the new Armv8.5-A and corresponding > >> extensions in the gcc-9/changes.html. > >> As per https://gcc.gnu.org/about.html, I have used W3 Validator. > >> Is this ok for cvs? > >> > >> Thanks > >> Sudi > > > > > > Index: htdocs/gcc-9/changes.html > > =================================================================== > > RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-9/changes.html,v > > retrieving revision 1.43 > > diff -u -r1.43 changes.html > > --- htdocs/gcc-9/changes.html 21 Feb 2019 10:32:55 -0000 1.43 > > +++ htdocs/gcc-9/changes.html 21 Feb 2019 18:25:09 -0000 > > @@ -283,6 +283,19 @@ > > </p> > > <p>The intrinsics are defined by the ACLE specification.</p> > > </li> > > + <li> > > + The Armv8.5-A architecture is now supported. This can be used by > > specifying the > > + <code>-march=armv8.5-a</code> option. > > > > > > I tend to prefer the wording "... is now supported through the > > <code>-march=armv8.5-a</code> option". > > Otherwise it reads as the compiler "using" the architecture, whereas we > > usually talk about "targeting" an architecture. > > > > + </li> > > + <li> The Armv8.5-A architecture also adds some security features that > > are optional to all older > > + architecture versions. These are also supported now and only effect > > the assembler. > > + <ul> > > + <li> Speculation Barrier instruction using > > <code>-march=armv8-a+sb</code>.</li> > > + <li> Execution and Data Prediction Restriction instructions using > > <code>-march=armv8-a+predres</code>.</li> > > + <li> Speculative Store Bypass Safe instruction using > > <code>-march=armv8-a+ssbs</code>. This does not > > + require a compiler option for Arm and thus > > <code>-march=armv8-a+ssbs</code> is a AArch64 specific option.</li> > > > > "AArch64-specific" > > > > > > LGTM otherwise. > > Thanks, > > Kyrill > > Thanks for the review and sorry for the delay in response. I had edited > the language for adding new options in a few other places as well. > > + <li> The Armv8.5-A architecture also adds some security features that are > + optional to all older architecture versions. These are also supported now
s/also supported now/now supported/ > + and only effect the assembler. s/effect/affect/ > + <ul> > + <li> Speculation Barrier instruction through the > + <code>-march=armv8-a+sb</code> option.</li> > + <li> Execution and Data Prediction Restriction instructions through > + the <code>-march=armv8-a+predres</code> option.</li> > + <li> Speculative Store Bypass Safe instruction through the > + <code>-march=armv8-a+ssbs</code> option. This does not require a > + compiler option for Arm and thus <code>-march=armv8-a+ssbs</code> > + is an AArch64-specific option.</li> > + </ul> > + </li> > </ul> > > <h5 id="aarch64">AArch64 specific</h5> > @@ -362,6 +380,23 @@ > The default value is 16 (64Kb) and can be changed at configure > time using the flag > <code>--with-stack-clash-protection-guard-size=12|16</code>. > </li> > + <li> > + The option <code>-msign-return-address=</code> has been deprecated. This > + has been replaced by the new <code>-mbranch-protection=</code> option. > This > + new option can now be used to enable the return address signing as well > as > + the new Branch Target Identification feature of Armv8.5-A architecture. > For > + more information on the arguments accepted by this option, please refer > to > + <a > href="https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/AArch64-Options.html#AArch64-Options";>AArch64-Options</a>. > + </li> > + <li> The following optional extensions to Armv8.5-A architecture are also > + supported now and only effect the assembler. s/effect/affect/ > + <ul> > + <li> Random Number Generation instructions through the > + <code>-march=armv8.5-a+rng</code> option.</li> > + <li> Memory Tagging Extension through the > + <code>-march=armv8.5-a+memtag</code> option.</li> > + </ul> > + </li> > </ul> > > <h5 id="arm">Arm specific</h5> Otherwise, OK by me but feel free to wait for people with gooder grammar than me to have their say. Thanks, James
