From: Xi Ruoyao <xry111@mengyan1223.wang>
To: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com>
Cc: Qing Zhao <qing.zhao@oracle.com>, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>,
"gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
YunQiang Su <yunqiang.su@cipunited.com>,
Jakub Jelinek <jakub@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] mips: add TARGET_ZERO_CALL_USED_REGS hook [PR104817, PR104820]
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2022 01:05:29 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <92e5b7a117192b213c0e01ea6db947a9a5c97509.camel@mengyan1223.wang> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <mptsfrka5b3.fsf@arm.com>
On Mon, 2022-03-14 at 16:04 +0000, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Xi Ruoyao <xry111@mengyan1223.wang> writes:
> > Now I think the only rational ways are:
> >
> > (1) allow zeroing more registers than need_zeroed_hardregs.
>
> I think this is the way to go. I agree it's a bit hacky, but it seems
> like the least worst option.
> > (2) allow zeroing less registers than need_zeroed_hardregs (then I'll
> > skip ST_REGS, after all they are just 8 bits in total).
>
> Yeah, this is explicitly OK, provided that the target maintainers
> feel that the contents of the registers in question are not a significant
> security concern. I don't feel I can make that call though. It's really
> a question for the userbase.
To me, I believe nobody will write some security-critical code depending
on a floating-point compare result :). Maybe I'm wrong by mixing up the
concept of "security" and "safety".
--
Xi Ruoyao <xry111@mengyan1223.wang>
School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-03-14 17:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-03-07 20:40 Xi Ruoyao
2022-03-09 18:25 ` Richard Sandiford
2022-03-10 11:53 ` Xi Ruoyao
2022-03-10 13:41 ` [PATCH v2 " Xi Ruoyao
2022-03-10 13:45 ` [PATCH v2 RFC, resend] " Xi Ruoyao
2022-03-10 20:31 ` [PATCH RFC] " Qing Zhao
2022-03-11 2:54 ` Xi Ruoyao
2022-03-11 16:08 ` Qing Zhao
2022-03-11 17:29 ` Xi Ruoyao
2022-03-11 17:31 ` Xi Ruoyao
2022-03-11 21:26 ` Qing Zhao
2022-03-12 10:48 ` Xi Ruoyao
2022-03-13 6:03 ` Xi Ruoyao
2022-03-14 16:04 ` Richard Sandiford
2022-03-14 17:05 ` Xi Ruoyao [this message]
2022-03-16 20:27 ` Qing Zhao
2022-03-18 13:11 ` Xi Ruoyao
2022-03-18 16:09 ` Richard Sandiford
2022-03-18 18:51 ` Qing Zhao
2022-04-01 14:32 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=92e5b7a117192b213c0e01ea6db947a9a5c97509.camel@mengyan1223.wang \
--to=xry111@mengyan1223.wang \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jakub@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=law@redhat.com \
--cc=qing.zhao@oracle.com \
--cc=richard.sandiford@arm.com \
--cc=yunqiang.su@cipunited.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).