On 14/12/2022 16:35, Andrea Corallo via Gcc-patches wrote:
Richard Earnshaw <richard.earns...@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
+ (unspec_volatile:SI [(reg:SI SP_REGNUM) (reg:SI LR_REGNUM)]
+ VUNSPEC_PACBTI_NOP))]
Please fix the indentation of the VUNSPEC_...
+ [(unspec_volatile:SI [(reg:SI IP_REGNUM) (reg:SI SP_REGNUM) (reg:SI
LR_REGNUM)]
+ VUNSPEC_AUT_NOP)]
And here.
Otherwise ok with that change.
R.
