On 28/10/2021 12:43, Tejas Belagod via Gcc-patches wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Gcc-patches <gcc-patches- bounces+belagod=gcc.gnu....@gcc.gnu.org> On Behalf Of Tejas Belagod via Gcc-patches Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 1:19 PM To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Patch 7/7, Arm, GCC] Introduce multilibs for PACBTI target feature. Hi, This patch adds a multilib for pacbti target feature. Tested on arm-none-eabi. OK for trunk? 2021-10-04 Tejas Belagod <tbela...@arm.com> gcc/ChangeLog: * config/arm/t-rmprofile: Add multilib rules for +pacbti.This patch adds a multilib for pacbti target feature. 2021-10-04 Tejas Belagod <tbela...@arm.com> gcc/ChangeLog: * config/arm/t-rmprofile: Add multilib rules for +pacbti. Tested the following configurations, OK for trunk? -mthumb/-march=armv8.1-m.main+pacbti/-mfloat-abi=soft -marm/-march=armv7-a/-mfpu=vfpv3-d16/-mfloat-abi=softfp mcmodel=small and tiny aarch64-none-linux-gnu native test and bootstrap Thanks, Tejas.
I can't decide whether this is too much, or too little. But it doesn't feel right as it is.
Ideally we don't want yet another multilib. It would be better to have one of the existing multilib variants made pac/bti safe.
And secondly, what about the hand-written assembler files in libgcc? Don't they need updating to be PAC/BTI safe?
Also, does this even do what you intend it to do? It adds the PAC/BTI architectural feature, but it doesn't actually enable PAC/BTI in the generated code.
R.
