https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=128373
Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |itsimbal at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> ---
There are other places that use naked flag_cf_protection:
i386.cc:
10576 pro_epilogue_adjust_stack (stack_pointer_rtx, sa,
10577 const0_rtx, style,
10578 flag_cf_protection);
...
10767 /* In case of return from EH a simple return cannot be used
10768 as a return address will be compared with a shadow stack
10769 return address. Use indirect jump instead. */
10770 if (style == 2 && flag_cf_protection)
10771 {
10772 /* Register used in indirect jump must be in word_mode. But
10773 Pmode may not be the same as word_mode for x32. */
10774 rtx ecx = gen_rtx_REG (word_mode, CX_REG);
10775 rtx_insn *insn;
Added by:
2017-11-17 Igor Tsimbalist <[email protected]>
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_expand_epilogue): Change simple
return to indirect jump for EH return if control-flow
protection is enabled. Change explicit 'false' argument in
pro_epilogue_adjust_stack with a value of
flag_cf_protection.
CC author.
