Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> writes: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 11:59:27AM +0000, Wilco Dijkstra wrote: >> Hi, >> >> > On 1/10/23 19:12, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote: >> >> Anyway, the sooner this makes it into gcc trunk, the better, it breaks >> >> quite >> >> a lot of stuff. >> > >> > Yep, please, we're also waiting for this patch for pushing to our gcc13 >> > package. >> >> Well I'm waiting for an OK from a maintainer... I believe Jakub can approve >> it as well. > > Yes, I can, but am not sure it is appropriate. While I'm familiar with the > unwinder, I'm not familiar with the pointer signing, and AArch64 has active > maintainers, so I'd prefer to defer the review to them.
I think my main question is: how clean vs hacky is it to use REG_UNDEFINED as effectively a toggle bit, rather than using REG_UNDEFINED for its intended purpose? In the review for earlier (May) patch, I'd asked whether it would make sense to add a new enum. Would that be OK from a target-independent point of view? E.g. maybe REG_TOGGLE_ON. Although we don't AFAIK support using DW_CFA_undefined with RA signing, the failure mode would be non-obvious: it would effectively toggle the bit on. It would be good to remove the definition of RA_SIGNED_BIT as well, so that people don't accidentally use it in future. Thanks, Richard
