Sorry for later replay, I will add testcases on a following patch if the
patch is accepted.
Regards,
Cooper
On 2020/7/28 上午9:23, Kito Cheng wrote:
Add testcase later is OK to me.
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 6:55 AM Jim Wilson <j...@sifive.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 7:04 PM cooper <cooper...@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
Ping
On 2020/7/13 下午4:15, cooper wrote:
gcc/
* config/riscv/riscv-opts.h (stack_protector_guard): New enum.
* config/riscv/riscv.c (riscv_option_override): Handle
the new options.
* config/riscv/riscv.md (stack_protect_set): New pattern to handle
flexible stack protector guard settings.
(stack_protect_set_<mode>): Ditto.
(stack_protect_test): Ditto.
(stack_protect_test_<mode>): Ditto.
* config/riscv/riscv.opt (mstack-protector-guard=,
mstack-protector-guard-reg=, mstack-protector-guard-offset=): New
options.
* doc/invoke.texi (Option Summary) [RISC-V Options]:
Add -mstack-protector-guard=, -mstack-protector-guard-reg=, and
-mstack-protector-guard-offset=.
(RISC-V Options): Ditto.
The v2 patch looks fine to me. Meanwhile, Kito asked for testcases
which would be nice to have but I don't think is critical considering
that this has already been tested with a kernel build. Maybe the
testcases can be a follow on patch? I'd like to see forward movement
on this, even if we accept a patch without the testcases.
Jim
