On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 7:04 PM cooper <cooper...@linux.alibaba.com> wrote: > Ping > > On 2020/7/13 下午4:15, cooper wrote: > > gcc/ > > * config/riscv/riscv-opts.h (stack_protector_guard): New enum. > > * config/riscv/riscv.c (riscv_option_override): Handle > > the new options. > > * config/riscv/riscv.md (stack_protect_set): New pattern to handle > > flexible stack protector guard settings. > > (stack_protect_set_<mode>): Ditto. > > (stack_protect_test): Ditto. > > (stack_protect_test_<mode>): Ditto. > > * config/riscv/riscv.opt (mstack-protector-guard=, > > mstack-protector-guard-reg=, mstack-protector-guard-offset=): New > > options. > > * doc/invoke.texi (Option Summary) [RISC-V Options]: > > Add -mstack-protector-guard=, -mstack-protector-guard-reg=, and > > -mstack-protector-guard-offset=. > > (RISC-V Options): Ditto.
The v2 patch looks fine to me. Meanwhile, Kito asked for testcases which would be nice to have but I don't think is critical considering that this has already been tested with a kernel build. Maybe the testcases can be a follow on patch? I'd like to see forward movement on this, even if we accept a patch without the testcases. Jim
