Richard Earnshaw via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes: > 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. >>
Hi Richard, > 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? I agree with you, this patch is missing at least bti landing pads in the hand-written assembler files in libgcc. > 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. Good point, I'll fix this too in the upcoming respin. Thanks for reviewing. BR Andrea
