From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=8p3/=L7=arm.com=Richard.Earnshaw@sourceware.org>
Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172])
	by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A4AA3858C42
	for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Fri, 26 Apr 2024 09:19:51 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 1A4AA3858C42
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com
ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 1A4AA3858C42
Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=217.140.110.172
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1714123192; cv=none;
	b=LYZYvSdc+UOP7tPzk8RC7gPtzvBl6JNtAHTfDhDfXZi+ggBtor/IiVKeU/tW+Kq2/IVkYkcqygnUfp3EMnmrVVaEBxamHaahk2wbBHjLJVX8QaZ8T5flFRFVhMkNLggolzoHo+mVK9R05CHFQb8PHAXyLL3QcAoFQ5q5VC/axf4=
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key;
	t=1714123192; c=relaxed/simple;
	bh=0WbPS7cGtaXoutNl1qWRp1kIlHZx3XsUC6piT02pmNI=;
	h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From; b=WMrwn5VW7mW3K4ZwjOf4lswwW8qucwsyYUBxs8ASz5DFQfY+wth4f8SqgkZLDND/Qed2CGT6bcp4j6pLb48NOV3UOHYw8n6sfjDXhRuV+me+1gYAc9quh8CJhxYQsG4nTDYhzj0U45OFZo0rNf48SfpKEhFljmLaACt0pfXcZXc=
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org
Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14])
	by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1D862F4;
	Fri, 26 Apr 2024 02:20:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.2.78.64] (e120077-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.2.78.64])
	by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 221823F64C;
	Fri, 26 Apr 2024 02:19:50 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <25390b61-d034-4f78-9bfc-c9bdcd6a1299@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 10:19:48 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm: Zero/Sign extends for CMSE security
To: Torbjorn SVENSSON <torbjorn.svensson@foss.st.com>,
 Richard Ball <Richard.Ball@arm.com>,
 "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
References: <33b2e8aa-9aa6-48e3-acef-0bab99676595@arm.com>
 <f15e849b-3e75-4df9-a3cd-6c3a9188be3a@foss.st.com>
 <DB9PR08MB6957D114A42E47184EBEE28781172@DB9PR08MB6957.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
 <be27abe4-d4b7-4eee-a93a-dc747c3dde1d@foss.st.com>
From: "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <be27abe4-d4b7-4eee-a93a-dc747c3dde1d@foss.st.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3491.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_DMARC_NONE,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>

On 26/04/2024 09:39, Torbjorn SVENSSON wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 2024-04-25 16:25, Richard Ball wrote:
>> Hi Torbjorn,
>>
>> Thanks very much for the comments.
>> I think given that the code that handles this, is within a FOREACH_FUNCTION_ARGS loop.
>> It seems a fairly safe assumption that if the code works for one that it will work for all.
>> To go back and add extra tests to me seems a little overkill.
> 
> For verifying that the implementation does the right thing now, no, but for verifying against future regressions, then yes.
> 
> So, from a regression point of view, I think it makes sense to have the check that more than the first argument is managed properly.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Torbjörn

Feel free to post some additional tests, Torbjorn.

R.