On 01/06/2021 18:16, Srinath Parvathaneni via Gcc-patches wrote:
Hi Richard,
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Earnshaw <richard.earns...@foss.arm.com>
Sent: 13 April 2021 14:55
To: Srinath Parvathaneni <srinath.parvathan...@arm.com>; gcc-
patc...@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: Richard Earnshaw <richard.earns...@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [GCC][Patch] arm: Fix the mve multilib for the broken cmse
support (pr99939).
On 12/04/2021 14:04, Srinath Parvathaneni via Gcc-patches wrote:
Hi,
The current CMSE support in the multilib build for "-march=armv8.1-
m.main+mve -mfloat-abi=hard -mfpu=auto"
is broken as specified in PR99939 and this patch fixes the issue.
Regression tested on arm-none-eabi and found no regressions.
Ok for master? and Ok for GCC-10 branch?
Regards,
Srinath.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2021-04-12 Srinath Parvathaneni <srinath.parvathan...@arm.com>
PR target/99939
* gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-20.c: New test.
libgcc/ChangeLog:
2021-04-12 Srinath Parvathaneni <srinath.parvathan...@arm.com>
PR target/99939
* config/arm/t-arm: Make changes to use cmse.c for all the
armv8.1-m.main mulitlibs.
############### Attachment also inlined for ease of reply
###############
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-20.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-20.c
new file mode 100644
index
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7e2739e14792624adf5b428
0ca58
a5d8320acbf0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-20.c
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+/* { dg-do run } */
+/* { dg-additional-options "-mcmse
+-Wl,--section-start,.gnu.sgstubs=0x00190000" } */
+
+#include <arm_cmse.h>
+#include <stdlib.h>
+#include <stdio.h>
+
+void __attribute__((cmse_nonsecure_entry))
+secure_fun (int a, int *p)
+{
+ void *b = cmse_check_address_range ((void *)p, a, 1);
+
+ if (b == NULL)
+ __builtin_abort ();
+ printf("%d", *((int *)b));
+}
+
+int
+main (void)
+{
+ int *ptr;
+ int size = 1;
+ ptr = (int *) calloc (1, sizeof(int *));
+ *ptr = 1315852292;
+ secure_fun (size, ptr);
+ free (ptr);
+ return 0;
+}
diff --git a/libgcc/config/arm/t-arm b/libgcc/config/arm/t-arm index
3625a2590beec4e4e0e0881be9ad284c595c7190..949e2ee06653680211ff2dcf
0b55
a41a6aedc31c 100644
--- a/libgcc/config/arm/t-arm
+++ b/libgcc/config/arm/t-arm
@@ -9,11 +9,12 @@ CMSE_OPTS:=-mcmse
endif
ifdef HAVE_CMSE
-ifndef HAVE_V81M
-libgcc-objects += cmse.o cmse_nonsecure_call.o
+libgcc-objects += cmse.o
cmse.o: $(srcdir)/config/arm/cmse.c
$(gcc_compile) -c $(CMSE_OPTS) $<
+ifndef HAVE_V81M
+libgcc-objects += cmse_nonsecure_call.o
cmse_nonsecure_call.o: $(srcdir)/config/arm/cmse_nonsecure_call.S
$(gcc_compile) -c $<
endif
So if I have two object files using CMSE and one is built with v8m, but the
other with v8.1m, when I link them, the needed additional support for the
v8m object file will be missing the library support.
Wouldn't it be better to just build the cmse_nonsecure_call code
unconditionally? It won't be called if it's not needed, but will be there if
something does require it.
I have modified the patch to build the cmse_nonsecure_call code unconditionally,
I have attached the diff and cover letter in this email.
Please let me know if it is ok for master?
Regards,
Srinath.
R.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2021-06-01 Srinath Parvathaneni <srinath.parvathan...@arm.com>
* gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-18.c: Modify
Incomplete. I know you've modified it, but how?
* gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-20.c: New test.
libgcc/ChangeLog:
2021-06-01 Srinath Parvathaneni <srinath.parvathan...@arm.com>
* config/arm/cmse_nonsecure_call.S: Modify to add
__ARM_FEATURE_MVE macro check.
"Add __ARM_FEATURE_MVE macro check." is sufficient (I know you've
modified it).
* config/arm/t-arm: Make changes to link cmse.o and
cmse_nonsecure_call.o on finding -mcmse gcc options.
Again, "Make changes to " is redundant.
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-20.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-20.c
new file mode 100644
index
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7e2739e14792624adf5b4280ca58a5d8320acbf0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/cmse/cmse-20.c
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+/* { dg-do run } */
+/* { dg-additional-options "-mcmse
-Wl,--section-start,.gnu.sgstubs=0x00190000" } */
Why does this need a different stubs address to all the other executable
CMSE tests? Can't it use 0x00400000 like them?
R.
