Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes: > Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> writes: >> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 11:59:27AM +0000, Wilco Dijkstra wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> > On 1/10/23 19:12, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote: >>> >> Anyway, the sooner this makes it into gcc trunk, the better, it breaks >>> >> quite >>> >> a lot of stuff. >>> > >>> > Yep, please, we're also waiting for this patch for pushing to our gcc13 >>> > package. >>> >>> Well I'm waiting for an OK from a maintainer... I believe Jakub can approve >>> it as well. >> >> Yes, I can, but am not sure it is appropriate. While I'm familiar with the >> unwinder, I'm not familiar with the pointer signing, and AArch64 has active >> maintainers, so I'd prefer to defer the review to them. > > I think my main question is: how clean vs hacky is it to use > REG_UNDEFINED as effectively a toggle bit, rather than using > REG_UNDEFINED for its intended purpose? > > In the review for earlier (May) patch, I'd asked whether it would > make sense to add a new enum. Would that be OK from a target-independent > point of view? E.g. maybe REG_TOGGLE_ON. > > Although we don't AFAIK support using DW_CFA_undefined with RA signing, > the failure mode would be non-obvious: it would effectively toggle the > bit on. > > It would be good to remove the definition of RA_SIGNED_BIT as well, > so that people don't accidentally use it in future.
Sorry, just realised that the patch does do that. But please remove the comment too! Richard
