Kyrylo Tkachov <kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com> writes: > Hi Richard, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandif...@arm.com> >> Sent: 23 September 2020 19:34 >> To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org >> Cc: ni...@redhat.com; Richard Earnshaw <richard.earns...@arm.com>; >> Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana.radhakrish...@arm.com>; Kyrylo >> Tkachov <kyrylo.tkac...@arm.com> >> Subject: [PATCH] arm: Add a couple of extra stack-protector tests >> >> These tests were inspired by the corresponding aarch64 ones that I just >> committed. They already pass. >> >> Tested on arm-linux-gnueabi, arm-linux-gnueabihf and armeb-eabi. >> OK for trunk? > > Ok. Do they also need to go on the branches when the fix is backported?
There's not really an associated fix for this. It's more just a defensive patch: it's trying to make sure that the equivalent of the aarch64 bug doesn't creep (back) into arm. It was the same idea in the other direction for 0f0b00033a71ff728d6fab6f9d: I've no evidence that those tests ever failed on aarch64, but it seemed like a good idea to add aarch64 equivalents of the failing arm tests. Thanks, Richard
