Add testcase later is OK to me.
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 6:55 AM Jim Wilson <j...@sifive.com> wrote: > > 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
