From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 14E02384A430; Tue, 16 Jul 2024 13:29:54 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 14E02384A430 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1721136595; bh=hWCtORr4hYaI1VKBjLWRnk5+h94gV0mrCOdW/7xZgys=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=jZxM6ejCHiAJuQJa5H0fhBeRfy0A+hAQKFL2NZW6jS12JPtCMBwyNpsCdI6IIdALp 6ezV+IduEf1YQPbrf8D9btvvPs22mVrCcxDCJogQ6a0n3Z9vbz4J35Cqbx47Ek3O5k XFAh+Pc37nfvN7DlaH6DQ0LPQ222VNDPUJB3Tevo= From: "julien.voisin+gnu at dustri dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/106671] aarch64: BTI instruction are not inserted for cross-section direct calls Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2024 13:29:53 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.1.1 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: julien.voisin+gnu at dustri dot org X-Bugzilla-Status: WAITING X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D106671 --- Comment #19 from jvoisin --- > That's not a good reason to weaken the security of the generated code. Having BTI will more valid targets is still better than no BTI at all, and = it would still be better than what clang is doing.=