On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 12:31:59PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: > Is there anything akin to push/pop versions of .arch directitves that we > can use around the BTI instructions specifically? Not that I can see. > ... 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)? That should work, I think it's a taste thing which is better. For me it was a combination of there being a small number of files that were affected, the fact that even within that small set there was divergence in how they were doing this and the fact that neither solution is a thing of great beauty. > ... 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? This is only an issue for freestanding assembly files as far as I can see.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
