On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 11:41:07AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > Since inserting BTI landing pads into assembler functions will require > us to change the default architecture we need a way to enable > extensions without hard coding the architecture. Assuming we'll poke the toolchain folk, let's consider alternative ways around this in the mean time. Is there anything akin to push/pop versions of .arch directitves that we can use around the BTI instructions specifically? ... or could we encode the BTI instructions with a .inst, and wrap those in macros so that GAS won't complain (like we do for mrs_s and friends)? ... does asking GCC to use BTI for C code make the default arch v8.5 for inline asm, or does it do something special to allow BTI instructions in specific locations? Thanks, Mark.
