[PATCH v5 0/2] IBM zSystems: Improve storing asan frame_pc

[Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@linux.ibm.com>]

Hi,

This is a resend of v4 with slightly adjusted commit messages:

v1: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2019-July/525016.html
v2: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2019-July/525069.html
v3: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-June/548338.html
v4: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-July/549252.html

It still survives the bootstrap and the regtest on x86_64-redhat-linux,
s390x-redhat-linux and ppc64le-redhat-linux.  It also fixes [1].

I also tried the approach with moving .LASANPC closer to the function
label and using FUNCTION_BOUNDARY instead of introducing
CODE_LABEL_BOUNDARY, but the problem there is that it's hard to catch
the moment where the function label is written.  Architectures can do
it by calling ASM_OUTPUT_LABEL() or assemble_name() in
ASM_DECLARE_FUNCTION_NAME(), ASM_OUTPUT_FUNCTION_LABEL() or
TARGET_ASM_FUNCTION_PROLOGUE().  epiphany_start_function() does that
twice, but passes the same decl to both calls.  Note that simply
moving asan_function_start() to final_start_function_1() is not enough,
since an architecture can write something after the function label.
This all means that for this approach to work, all the architectures
need to be adjusted, which looks like an overkill to me.

Best regards,
Ilya

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-April/593666.html


Ilya Leoshkevich (2):
  asan: specify alignment for LASANPC labels
  IBM zSystems: Define CODE_LABEL_BOUNDARY

 gcc/asan.cc                                    |  1 +
 gcc/config/s390/s390.h                         |  3 +++
 gcc/defaults.h                                 |  5 +++++
 gcc/doc/tm.texi                                |  4 ++++
 gcc/doc/tm.texi.in                             |  4 ++++
 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/s390/asan-no-gotoff.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
 6 files changed, 32 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/s390/asan-no-gotoff.c

-- 
2.37.2