labath added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lldb/test/API/linux/aarch64/mte_memory_region/main.c:9-14
+ if (!(getauxval(AT_HWCAP2) & HWCAP2_MTE))
+ return 1;
+
+ int got = prctl(PR_SET_TAGGED_ADDR_CTRL, PR_TAGGED_ADDR_ENABLE, 0, 0, 0);
+ if (got)
+ return 1;
----------------
DavidSpickett wrote:
> labath wrote:
> > Instead of duplicating these checks in dotest, maybe we could use the
> > result of the inferior as a indication to skip the test. Like, if, instead
> > of hitting the breakpoint, the inferior exits with code 47, we know that
> > the required cpu feature is not supported?
> Sounds good to me.
>
> That would mean defining things like PROT_MTE in the test file, for
> toolchains that won't have it. I assume that's ok to do.
> (I'll probably need to do that for lldb-server code later anyway)
Depends... How likely is the system to support memory tagging if the relevant
headers don't define the constants? Do you want to support systems like those?
Maybe you could do something like this:
```
int main() {
#ifdef HWCAP2_MTE
// do stuff
#else
return 47;
#endif
}
```
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D87442/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D87442
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
