The 04/24/2020 15:17, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.n...@arm.com> writes:
> > @@ -2221,6 +2239,14 @@ change_cfi_row (dw_cfi_row *old_row, dw_cfi_row
> > *new_row)
> > cfi->dw_cfi_opc = DW_CFA_GNU_window_save;
> > add_cfi (cfi);
> > }
> > +
> > + if (old_row->ra_mangled != new_row->ra_mangled)
> > + {
> > + dw_cfi_ref cfi = new_cfi ();
> > + /* DW_CFA_GNU_window_save is reused for toggling RA mangle state. */
> > + cfi->dw_cfi_opc = DW_CFA_GNU_window_save;
> > + add_cfi (cfi);
> > + }
> > }
> >
> > /* Examine CFI and return true if a cfi label and set_loc is needed
>
> I wonder if it would be worth asserting:
>
> gcc_assert (!old_row->ra_mangled && !new_row->ra_mangled);
>
> in the "SPARC" block and:
>
> gcc_assert (!old_row->window_save && !new_row->window_save);
>
> in the "aarch64" block?
makes sense.
i'll fix it.
> > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.target/aarch64/pr94515-2.C
> > b/gcc/testsuite/g++.target/aarch64/pr94515-2.C
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 00000000000..1f13e1200ad
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.target/aarch64/pr94515-2.C
> > @@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
> > +/* PR target/94515. Check .cfi_window_save with multiple return paths. */
> > +/* { dg-do run } */
> > +/* { dg-require-effective-target lp64 } */
> > +/* { dg-additional-options "-O2 -mbranch-protection=pac-ret" } */
> > +
> > +volatile int zero = 0;
> > +int global = 0;
> > +
> > +__attribute__((noinline))
> > +int bar(void)
> > +{
> > + if (zero == 0) return 3;
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +__attribute__((noinline, noreturn))
> > +void unwind (void)
> > +{
> > + throw 42;
> > +}
> > +
> > +__attribute__((noinline, noipa, target("branch-protection=pac-ret")))
>
> I'm probably just showing my ignorance, but is this target attribute
> needed? It looks like all functions in the test are compiled with pac-ret.
no, that's left over before i added it to the cflags,
i'll fix it.
>
> LGTM otherwise, but please give others 24 hrs to object.
thanks.
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
--
