From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 51EB03842400; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 14:33:45 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 51EB03842400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1594391625;
 bh=BQ7HGbbZLQU0FEPzj9yP8ewNU9jB6WYlaiYUqqIHiNc=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=NiY4Z4byhZ/FJBRfBq8/u+I4sLks4ubsFweVE+UPztBjWFQyKuKLwa7JNiUBTDR03
 da/cRLbFU3XZWLj3V6Td35sa17Lgjs7w3CskKSehi162Py13MZGPyehK/kEj9nicGD
 lnfSDTD83AZ+Cvt8U9ebPiVpy3IdM6k6nORXQRGs=
From: "hjl.tools at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/93492] Broken code with -fpatchable-function-entry and
 -fcf-protection=full
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 14:33:45 +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: 10.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: patch, wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
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: 11.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-93492-4-JnQ2Hx1n19@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-93492-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-93492-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 14:33:45 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D93492

--- Comment #31 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE from comment #30)
> > --- Comment #29 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> ---
> > (In reply to ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE from comment #28)
> >> > --- Comment #27 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> ---
> >> > (In reply to ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE from comment #26)
> >> >> > --- Comment #25 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> ---
> >> >> > -fpatchable-function-entry and -mfentry generate special instruct=
ion
> >> >> > sequence at function entry.  Does Solaris support such special
> >> >> > instruction sequence?
> >> >>=20
> >> >> Where would such support live?  The kernel?  libc.so.1?  ld.so.1?
> >> >
> >> > -fpatchable-function-entry and -mfentry are used in Linux kernel.
> >>=20
> >> In that case: no.  The Solaris kernel can (and is) compiled both by gcc
> >> and Studio cc, and the latter certainly hasn't anything similar.
> >
> > Then just skip these tests on Solaris.
>=20
> If this is a Linux-only feature, shouldn't the tests rather be
> restricted to Linux instead?  It certainly also fails on freebsd,
> darwin, mingw and whatever more.  Having to skip it on all those
> explicitly (until we discover the next target we forgot about) seems
> just the wrong way round.


These features aren't Linux specific.  But they do require special
sequence at function entrance.  Solaris has a different function entry
which may not work with these features.=