This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling
- From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: "Tsimbalist, Igor V" <igor dot v dot tsimbalist at intel dot com>, Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 13:05:47 -0600
- Subject: Re: 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Authentication-results: ext-mx05.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com
- Authentication-results: ext-mx05.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=law at redhat dot com
- Dmarc-filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 435FAA8A6
- References: <D511F25789BA7F4EBA64C8A63891A0027AA04014@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> <CAFiYyc0=pkpVTSX9W7YZmPo19StCHsPK7PMmO29QmQ8XPCFvxg@mail.gmail.com> <0aac193e-9433-0817-8772-55c8484df7be@redhat.com> <D511F25789BA7F4EBA64C8A63891A0027AA8EE54@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com>
On 09/12/2017 09:40 AM, Tsimbalist, Igor V wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jeff Law [mailto:law@redhat.com]
>> Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 10:32 PM
>> To: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>; Tsimbalist, Igor V
>> <igor.v.tsimbalist@intel.com>
>> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
>> Subject: Re: 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling
>>
>> On 08/15/2017 07:42 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>> Please change the names to omit 'with_', thus just notrack and
>>> GF_CALL_NOTRACK.
>>>
>>> I think 'notrack' is somewhat unspecific of a name, what prevented you
>>> to use 'nocet'?
>> I think we should look for something better than notrack. I think "control
>> flow enforcement/CFE" is commonly used for this stuff. CET is an Intel
>> marketing name IIRC.
>>
>> The tracking is for indirect branch/call targets. So some combination of cfe,
>> branch/call and track should be sufficient.
> Still remaining question from me - is it ok to use 'notrack' as the attribute name. I've asked Richard
> about this in this thread.
I tend to agree with Richi that "track" is a bit too generic. no_cfe
might be better. Or no_cfi, but cfi is commonly used to represent
call-frame-info :-)
jeff