diff options
author | Paul Kirth <paulkirth@google.com> | 2023-03-20 21:16:15 +0000 |
---|---|---|
committer | Paul Kirth <paulkirth@google.com> | 2023-04-12 21:06:22 +0000 |
commit | aa1d2693c25622ea4a8ee2b622ba2a617e18ef88 (patch) | |
tree | 0207d1a8dc86275e0f4b0de46cfefff7d5b654d4 /lldb/source/Plugins/Process/scripted/ScriptedProcess.cpp | |
parent | d66e42ca4127db5b09fe47791c867f1907ee1b55 (diff) | |
download | llvm-aa1d2693c25622ea4a8ee2b622ba2a617e18ef88.zip llvm-aa1d2693c25622ea4a8ee2b622ba2a617e18ef88.tar.gz llvm-aa1d2693c25622ea4a8ee2b622ba2a617e18ef88.tar.bz2 |
[CodeGen][RISCV] Change Shadow Call Stack Register to X3
ShadowCallStack implementation uses s2 register on RISC-V, but that
choice is problematic for reasons described in:
https://lists.riscv.org/g/sig-toolchains/message/544,
https://github.com/riscv-non-isa/riscv-elf-psabi-doc/issues/370, and
https://github.com/google/android-riscv64/issues/72
The concern over the register choice was also brought up in
https://reviews.llvm.org/D84414.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D84414#2228666 said:
```
"If the register choice is the only concern about this work, then I think
we can probably land it as-is and fixup the register choice if we see
major drawbacks later. Yes, it's an ABI issue, but on the other hand the
shadow call stack is not a standard ABI anyway.""
```
Since we have now found a sufficient reason to fixup the register
choice, we should go ahead and update the implementation. We propose
using x3(gp) which is now the platform register in the RISC-V ABI.
Reviewed By: asb, hiraditya, mcgrathr, craig.topper
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D146463
Diffstat (limited to 'lldb/source/Plugins/Process/scripted/ScriptedProcess.cpp')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions