public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@foss.arm.com>
To: Tejas Belagod <Tejas.Belagod@arm.com>,
	Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>,
	"gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch 8/8, Arm, GCC] Introduce multilibs for PACBTI target feature. [Was RE: [Patch 7/7, Arm, GCC] Introduce multilibs for PACBTI target feature.]
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2021 14:56:44 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <93f632b6-4eb9-f709-1f02-fddb7c3a03a8@foss.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <PAXPR08MB707593E3D8C45E0FD6887E5BEA869@PAXPR08MB7075.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>



On 28/10/2021 12:43, Tejas Belagod via Gcc-patches wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Gcc-patches <gcc-patches-
>> bounces+belagod=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org> On Behalf Of Tejas Belagod via
>> Gcc-patches
>> Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 1:19 PM
>> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
>> Subject: [Patch 7/7, Arm, GCC] Introduce multilibs for PACBTI target feature.
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> This patch adds a multilib for pacbti target feature.
>>
>> Tested on arm-none-eabi. OK for trunk?
>>
>> 2021-10-04  Tejas Belagod  <tbelagod@arm.com>
>>
>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>
>> 	* config/arm/t-rmprofile: Add multilib rules for +pacbti.
> 
> 
> This patch adds a multilib for pacbti target feature.
> 
> 2021-10-04  Tejas Belagod  <tbelagod@arm.com>
> 
> gcc/ChangeLog:
> 
> 	* config/arm/t-rmprofile: Add multilib rules for +pacbti.
> 
> Tested the following configurations, OK for trunk?
> 
> -mthumb/-march=armv8.1-m.main+pacbti/-mfloat-abi=soft
> -marm/-march=armv7-a/-mfpu=vfpv3-d16/-mfloat-abi=softfp
> mcmodel=small and tiny
> aarch64-none-linux-gnu native test and bootstrap
> 
> Thanks,
> Tejas.
> 

I can't decide whether this is too much, or too little.  But it doesn't 
feel right as it is.

Ideally we don't want yet another multilib.  It would be better to have 
one of the existing multilib variants made pac/bti safe.

And secondly, what about the hand-written assembler files in libgcc? 
Don't they need updating to be PAC/BTI safe?

Also, does this even do what you intend it to do?  It adds the PAC/BTI 
architectural feature, but it doesn't actually enable PAC/BTI in the 
generated code.

R.

  reply	other threads:[~2021-12-07 14:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-10-28 11:43 Tejas Belagod
2021-12-07 14:56 ` Richard Earnshaw [this message]
2021-12-10  9:39   ` Andrea Corallo
2021-12-16 14:52   ` Andrea Corallo

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=93f632b6-4eb9-f709-1f02-fddb7c3a03a8@foss.arm.com \
    --to=richard.earnshaw@foss.arm.com \
    --cc=Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com \
    --cc=Tejas.Belagod@arm.com \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    /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).