Richard Earnshaw <Richard.Earnshaw@foss.arm.com> writes:

[...]

>
> +      if (TARGET_TPCS_FRAME)
> +        error ("Return address signing and %<-mtpcs-frame%> are
> incompatible.");
>
> So really this is 'not implemented' rather than not compatible - I
> don't see why we couldn't implement this if we really wanted to.  It's
> not worth implementing it because tpcs-frames are very much legacy
> these days.
>
> So the message should use sorry() and say 'is not supported' rather
> than 'are incompatible'.
>
> +(define_insn "pacbti_nop"
> +  [(set (reg:SI IP_REGNUM)
> +	(unspec:SI [(reg:SI SP_REGNUM) (reg:SI LR_REGNUM)]
> +		   VUNSPEC_PACBTI_NOP))]
>
> No, this needs to be unspec_volatile, not unspec.
>
> +(define_insn "aut_nop"
> +  [(unspec:SI [(reg:SI IP_REGNUM) (reg:SI SP_REGNUM) (reg:SI LR_REGNUM)]
> +	      VUNSPEC_AUT_NOP)]
>
> Similarly.
>
> R.


Hi Richard & all,

please find attached the updated patch implementing suggestions.

BR

  Andrea