================
@@ -10685,6 +10689,26 @@ SDValue AArch64TargetLowering::LowerBR_JT(SDValue Op,
return DAG.getNode(ISD::BRIND, DL, MVT::Other, JTInfo, SDValue(Dest, 0));
}
+SDValue AArch64TargetLowering::LowerBRIND(SDValue Op, SelectionDAG &DAG) const
{
+ MachineFunction &MF = DAG.getMachineFunction();
+ std::optional<uint16_t> BADisc =
+ Subtarget->getPtrAuthBlockAddressDiscriminator(MF.getFunction());
+ if (!BADisc)
+ return SDValue();
+
+ SDLoc DL(Op);
+ SDValue Chain = Op.getOperand(0);
+ SDValue Dest = Op.getOperand(1);
+
+ SDValue Disc = DAG.getTargetConstant(*BADisc, DL, MVT::i64);
+ SDValue Key = DAG.getTargetConstant(AArch64PACKey::IA, DL, MVT::i32);
+ SDValue AddrDisc = DAG.getRegister(AArch64::XZR, MVT::i64);
+
+ SDNode *BrA = DAG.getMachineNode(AArch64::BRA, DL, MVT::Other,
----------------
asl wrote:
yeah, having `BR_JT` nodes is certainly more correct way, but seems to be more
invasive. Worth a `TODO` added, yes.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97647
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
