================
@@ -461,6 +463,139 @@ bool PreISelIntrinsicLowering::expandMemIntrinsicUses(
return Changed;
}
+static bool expandProtectedFieldPtr(Function &Intr) {
+ Module &M = *Intr.getParent();
+
+ SmallPtrSet<GlobalValue *, 2> DSsToDeactivate;
+
+ Type *Int8Ty = Type::getInt8Ty(M.getContext());
+ Type *Int64Ty = Type::getInt64Ty(M.getContext());
+ PointerType *PtrTy = PointerType::get(M.getContext(), 0);
+
+ Function *SignIntr =
+ Intrinsic::getOrInsertDeclaration(&M, Intrinsic::ptrauth_sign, {});
+ Function *AuthIntr =
+ Intrinsic::getOrInsertDeclaration(&M, Intrinsic::ptrauth_auth, {});
+
+ auto *EmuFnTy = FunctionType::get(Int64Ty, {Int64Ty, Int64Ty}, false);
+ FunctionCallee EmuSignIntr = M.getOrInsertFunction("__emupac_pacda",
EmuFnTy);
+ FunctionCallee EmuAuthIntr = M.getOrInsertFunction("__emupac_autda",
EmuFnTy);
+
+ auto CreateSign = [&](IRBuilder<> &B, Value *Val, Value *Disc,
+ OperandBundleDef DSBundle) {
+ Function *F = B.GetInsertBlock()->getParent();
+ Attribute FSAttr = F->getFnAttribute("target-features");
+ if (FSAttr.isValid() && FSAttr.getValueAsString().contains("+pauth"))
----------------
nikic wrote:
Hm... what about the case where some of the llvm.protected.field.ptr uses are
in `+pauth` functions and some in `-pauth` functions? Aren't we going to end up
using an inconsistent encoding in that case?
I think that this needs to be an ABI decision, not a target-feature decision.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/151647
_______________________________________________
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
