jthackray wrote: > Changing the preferred disassembly for bti instructions is okay, I guess? > Maybe a little inconvenient for anyone who wants to build code with > `-no-integrated-as`, though... maybe worth considering adding a flag to force > downgraded assembler output? Not sure how common that sort of workflow is > these days. > > From what I can see of the Arm documentation, FEAT_BTIE is a feature which > exists, and processors that implement this feature have additional > functionality related to BTI. This patch completely removes any awareness > from the compiler of FEAT_BTIE. Are you saying that nothing in the compiler > ever needs to be aware of whether a processor implements FEAT_BTIE?
We've agreed with our GNU/gcc team that we'll keep the `+btie` flag, as we already have a `+bti` flag. Gcc doesn't have a `+bti` and won't add a `+btie` flag either, as I understand it. Whilst it's a minor difference (we want to minimise these) they're advanced flags that most people are unlikely to use. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/171819 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
