https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106671
--- Comment #18 from Mark Brown ---
It's section placement stuff that's triggering this. You will also be able to
build a larger kernel if you try, though I'm not sure that's practical.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106671
--- Comment #17 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Mark Brown from comment #13)
> The kernel hasn't got any problem with BTI as far as I am aware - when built
> with clang we run the kernel with BTI enabled since clang does just insert a
> BTI C at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106671
--- Comment #16 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Mark Brown from comment #15)
> The kernel module loader simply does not insert veneers at present, and
> there were some implementation concerns IIRC.
That's not a good reason to weaken
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106671
--- Comment #15 from Mark Brown ---
The kernel module loader simply does not insert veneers at present, and there
were some implementation concerns IIRC.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106671
--- Comment #14 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Mark Brown from comment #13)
> The kernel hasn't got any problem with BTI as far as I am aware - when built
> with clang we run the kernel with BTI enabled since clang does just insert a
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106671
--- Comment #13 from Mark Brown ---
The kernel hasn't got any problem with BTI as far as I am aware - when built
with clang we run the kernel with BTI enabled since clang does just insert a
BTI C at the start of every function, and GCC works
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106671
--- Comment #12 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jiangning Liu from comment #11)
> Hi Wilco,
>
> > "it means we will need a linker optimization to remove those redundant BTIs
> > (eg. by changing them into NOPs)"
>
> It will be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106671
--- Comment #11 from Jiangning Liu
---
Hi Wilco,
> "it means we will need a linker optimization to remove those redundant BTIs
> (eg. by changing them into NOPs)"
It will be only for performance optimization, right? If we don't care about
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106671
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106671
Feng Xue changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fxue at os dot
amperecomputing.com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106671
--- Comment #8 from Mark Brown ---
Note that the issue was found in the Linux kernel - we were expecting to see
the BTI Cs there, it's certainly a lot simpler to work with.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106671
nsz at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nsz at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106671
--- Comment #6 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #5)
> (In reply to D Scott Phillips from comment #2)
> > th(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > > Shouldn't the linker add the BTI inside the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106671
--- Comment #5 from Richard Earnshaw ---
(In reply to D Scott Phillips from comment #2)
> th(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > Shouldn't the linker add the BTI inside the ___veneer instead?
>
> The bti instruction has to be placed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106671
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> Basically:
> void
> aarch64_print_patchable_function_entry (FILE *file,
> unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT
> patch_area_size,
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106671
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106671
--- Comment #2 from D Scott Phillips ---
th(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> Shouldn't the linker add the BTI inside the ___veneer instead?
The bti instruction has to be placed at the target of the indirect branch (at
the top of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106671
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Shouldn't the linker add the BTI inside the ___veneer instead?
18 matches
Mail list logo
