On 20/01/17 18:30, Jiong Wang wrote:
> 
> On 20/01/17 18:23, Jiong Wang wrote:
>>
>> OK, the attached patch disable the building of pointer signing code in
>> libgcc
>> on ILP32 mode, except the macro bit RA_A_SIGNED_BIT is still defined as I
>> want to book this bit for ILP32 as LP64 in case we later enable ILP32
>> support.
>>
>> All pauth builtins are not registered as well for ILP32 mode as these
>> builtins
>> are supposed to be used by libgcc unwinder code only.
>>
>> I also gated the three new testcases for return address signing using the
>> following directive and verified it works under my dejagnu environment.
>>
>> { dg-require-effective-target lp64 }
>>
>> multilib cross build finished (lp64, ilp32), OK for trunk?
>>
>> BTW, the mode fix patch doesn't have conflict with this patch, we may
>> still need it if we want to enable ILP32 support later.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> gcc/
>> 2017-01-20  Jiong Wang  <jiong.w...@arm.com>
>>
>>         * config/aarch64/aarch64-builtins.c (aarch64_init_builtins):
>> Don't
>>         register pauth builtins for ILP32.
>>
>> libgcc/
>>         * config/aarch64/aarch64-unwind.h: Restrict this file on LP64
>> only.
>>         * unwind-dw2.c (execute_cfa_program):  Only multiplexing
>>         DW_CFA_GNU_window_save for AArch64 LP64.
>>
>>
> 
> Missing testcase change in Changelog, added:
> 
> gcc/
> 2017-01-20  Jiong Wang  <jiong.w...@arm.com>
> 
>          * config/aarch64/aarch64-builtins.c (aarch64_init_builtins):
> Register
>          register pauth builtins for LP64 only.
>          * testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/return_address_sign_1.c: Enable
> on LP64
>          only.
>          * testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/return_address_sign_2.c: Likewise.
>          * testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/return_address_sign_3.c: Likewise.
> 
> libgcc/
>          * config/aarch64/aarch64-unwind.h: Empty this file on ILP32.
>          * unwind-dw2.c (execute_cfa_program):  Only multiplexing
>          DW_CFA_GNU_window_save for AArch64 and LP64.
> 
> 

The testsuite has its own ChangeLog file.

Otherwise OK.

R.

Reply via email to