On 26/04/2024 09:39, Torbjorn SVENSSON wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2024-04-25 16:25, Richard Ball wrote:
>> Hi Torbjorn,
>>
>> Thanks very much for the comments.
>> I think given that the code that handles this, is within a
>> FOREACH_FUNCTION_ARGS loop.
>> It seems a fairly safe assumption that if the
Hi,
On 2024-04-25 16:25, Richard Ball wrote:
Hi Torbjorn,
Thanks very much for the comments.
I think given that the code that handles this, is within a
FOREACH_FUNCTION_ARGS loop.
It seems a fairly safe assumption that if the code works for one that it
will work for all.
To go back and add
Regards,
Richard Ball
From: Torbjorn SVENSSON
Sent: 25 April 2024 12:47
To: Richard Ball ; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
; Richard Earnshaw ; Richard
Sandiford ; Marcus Shawcroft
; Kyrylo Tkachov
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm: Zero/Sign extends for CMSE security
Hi
Hi,
On 2024-04-24 17:55, Richard Ball wrote:
This patch makes the following changes:
1) When calling a secure function from non-secure code then any arguments
smaller than 32-bits that are passed in registers are zero- or
sign-extended.
2) After a non-secure function returns into secure
On 24/04/2024 16:55, Richard Ball wrote:
> This patch makes the following changes:
>
> 1) When calling a secure function from non-secure code then any arguments
>smaller than 32-bits that are passed in registers are zero- or
> sign-extended.
> 2) After a non-secure function returns into
This patch makes the following changes:
1) When calling a secure function from non-secure code then any arguments
smaller than 32-bits that are passed in registers are zero- or sign-extended.
2) After a non-secure function returns into secure code then any return value
smaller than 32-bits
