mrutland added a comment. In D72222#1846796 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D72222#1846796>, @mrutland wrote:
> In D72222#1839207 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D72222#1839207>, @MaskRay wrote: > > > I shall also mention that we are essentially making decisions for x86 > > people's endbr32/endbr64. I hope you can engage in x86 maintainers. Clang's > > current layout is recorded at D73071 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D73071>. > > > That's a good point w.r.t. x86; I will get in touch with the people working > on ftrace and live-patching there I spoke with Steven Rostedt (ftrace maintainer), and Josh Poimboeuf (livepatching maintainer) in the OFTC/#linux-rt IRC channel. Today x86 uses `-mfentry`, and they have no reason to move to `-fpatchable-function-entry` so long as the `ENDBR32/ENDBR64` instructions compose nicely with `-mfentry`. Given that, I don't think x86 kernel folk care either way. On the GCC side I was under the impression that x86 would go the same way as arm64, per https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92424#c4 There's a GCC ticket for x86: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93492 Thanks, Mark. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D72222/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D72222 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
