Skip to content

Support ARM crypto extension on A32/T32 #929

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 20, 2020

Conversation

makotokato
Copy link
Contributor

ARM Crypto Extensions supports on aarch32 too. So we should allow this intrinsics on arm.

@rust-highfive
Copy link

r? @Amanieu

(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@@ -40,6 +54,7 @@ use stdarch_test::assert_instr;
/// AES single round encryption.
#[inline]
#[target_feature(enable = "crypto")]
#[cfg_attr(target_arch = "arm", target_feature(enable = "v8"))]
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is the v8 feature actually required here? Does it work without this feature?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is the v8 feature actually required here? Does it work without this feature?

Yes, v8 feature is required since this is ARMv8 feature. If this is v7 or nothing, this causes LLVM ERROR: Cannot select: intrinsic %llvm.arm.neon.aese .

@Amanieu Amanieu merged commit 9142a8a into rust-lang:master Oct 20, 2020
@makotokato makotokato deleted the a32-crypto branch November 17, 2020 16:09
@tarcieri
Copy link
Contributor

Per #1003, it looks like this PR potentially broke the crypto extension on aarch64 although reviewing the changes I'm not quite sure how

@CryZe
Copy link
Contributor

CryZe commented Mar 17, 2021

It doesn't seem like there's any problem at all with using them: https://rust.godbolt.org/z/r4Yhdn

Maybe it's just a rustdoc bug?

@tarcieri
Copy link
Contributor

Huh wow, strange!

@Amanieu
Copy link
Member

Amanieu commented Mar 17, 2021

#1055?

@tarcieri
Copy link
Contributor

tarcieri commented Mar 17, 2021

Seems plausible. I guess #1003 can be closed as a dup then?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants