From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx07-00178001.pphosted.com (mx07-00178001.pphosted.com [185.132.182.106]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E9113858C42 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2024 08:39:23 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 5E9113858C42 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=foss.st.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=foss.st.com ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 5E9113858C42 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=185.132.182.106 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1714120765; cv=none; b=PD9pEtCmULTvPrWhHzV1SYxRVAlF/4PRShj6O9HuC3iqlFgyRc6IynjPVLUR6XgoK7QsP7nfqLkFhykPNurI4k2lMZUatJXo3Js/2vXfi1589+Cd29j7bUehg2PHGwH86tUP/xsNAmSH/ctK2/RGZbgz87OkHV6UayLZaPrF+0w= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1714120765; c=relaxed/simple; bh=VZn7RGBGboX0KrQG8dZ1TSvYMtWQDpko5rx1yRMSCSU=; h=DKIM-Signature:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From; b=ofMrPJ2D5+23WBS8MhhLzC6xVqNjMFg32OaVIu+S/sXV3LsfHieLk4rlFgu18g3smdtmJMdYy6Fm3mNSxtu75r7ZnYOYDHeKQOylsplhNysFK/zLVdYbtuhVG3QY4gzgl6kS6FKL8GC3wjg28zzpb/PMH1TeTY5+2NNFl3aiWh8= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org Received: from pps.filterd (m0369458.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx07-00178001.pphosted.com (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTP id 43Q1A4r4012219; Fri, 26 Apr 2024 10:39:21 +0200 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=foss.st.com; h= message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:references:from :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s= selector1; bh=/Kv2F/+v4hL/jGaX7jTfW75bOvyvkF2l/KqXCu1egaE=; b=w6 /rbXs8TTi3LpQ8aQmv4p+m0sxtwi2kEV/iPn4SSbAkBdyYI+owSOIxPZny/0nicP mOTu/Jlr4RuSGtczl2kR+3uKx1P4afCvYoJAYmuBsaXTrsZf/QjUyCzo8hvauxlY syw3M5YqylZj59J/lmpC+jS7pUqELkxE8An4XvHLuIt3Aa9V2RHa0Ye9bLlyE8DJ jacSjvc0C74HmUK265ZuzjHOdWedEIeK/LRJrvAxt+w1jpMJ8rE1xzl3xrG6BRCX sA1LzWPKOVpYbryeTdOtxbkLmT4nIqUjJwKQ55P0Gr/+p4Ns2XJcvHmLzbZaZMdY +msgPGiwDQcYWgvYXVlw== Received: from beta.dmz-ap.st.com (beta.dmz-ap.st.com [138.198.100.35]) by mx07-00178001.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3xmq90y9df-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 26 Apr 2024 10:39:21 +0200 (MEST) Received: from euls16034.sgp.st.com (euls16034.sgp.st.com [10.75.44.20]) by beta.dmz-ap.st.com (STMicroelectronics) with ESMTP id AE8FE40047; Fri, 26 Apr 2024 10:39:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from Webmail-eu.st.com (shfdag1node3.st.com [10.75.129.71]) by euls16034.sgp.st.com (STMicroelectronics) with ESMTP id 57565215BE1; Fri, 26 Apr 2024 10:39:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [10.252.16.170] (10.252.16.170) by SHFDAG1NODE3.st.com (10.75.129.71) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.35; Fri, 26 Apr 2024 10:39:01 +0200 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 10:39:00 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm: Zero/Sign extends for CMSE security Content-Language: en-US To: Richard Ball , Richard Earnshaw , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" References: <33b2e8aa-9aa6-48e3-acef-0bab99676595@arm.com> From: Torbjorn SVENSSON In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.252.16.170] X-ClientProxiedBy: SHFCAS1NODE1.st.com (10.75.129.72) To SHFDAG1NODE3.st.com (10.75.129.71) X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1011,Hydra:6.0.650,FMLib:17.11.176.26 definitions=2024-04-26_07,2024-04-26_01,2023-05-22_02 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: 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