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>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Cc: "richard dot guenther at gmail dot com" <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 00:06:45 -0600
- Subject: Re: 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Authentication-results: ext-mx03.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com
- Authentication-results: ext-mx03.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 573AF78EB6
- References: <D511F25789BA7F4EBA64C8A63891A0027AA04014@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> <CAFiYyc0=pkpVTSX9W7YZmPo19StCHsPK7PMmO29QmQ8XPCFvxg@mail.gmail.com> <D511F25789BA7F4EBA64C8A63891A0027AA583B9@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> <CAFiYyc0YrTPySyhegPU83g70B5-kVt95AVW2p8bfMLyM0BSyCQ@mail.gmail.com> <D511F25789BA7F4EBA64C8A63891A0027AA90A8B@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> <CAFiYyc20pZ7=8dN8KAS=q8GF0AGS1+rWLn_1D4X8WwAH5_t+kg@mail.gmail.com> <D511F25789BA7F4EBA64C8A63891A0028ADB5EF6@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <8ae1434e-5c90-b129-1968-e2fe325d9005@redhat.com> <D511F25789BA7F4EBA64C8A63891A00291F396FA@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> <D511F25789BA7F4EBA64C8A63891A00291F397CC@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> <D511F25789BA7F4EBA64C8A63891A00291F3D8E6@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com>
On 10/05/2017 04:20 AM, Tsimbalist, Igor V wrote:
> I would like to implement the patch in a bit different way depending on answers I will get for
> my following proposals:
>
> - I propose to make a type with 'nocf_check' attribute to be different from type w/o the attribute.
> The reason is that the type with 'nocf_check' attribute implies different code generation. It will be
> done by setting affects_type_identity field to true for the attribute. That in turn will trigger
> needed or expected type checking;
Seems reasonable. As a result something like
check_missing_nocf_check_attribute is going to just go away along with
the code in *-typeck.c which called it, right? If so that seems like a
nice cleanup.
>
> - I propose to ignore the 'nocf_check' attribute if 'fcf-protection' option is not specified and output
> the warning about this. If there is no instrumentation the type with attribute should not be treated
> differently from type w/o the attribute (see previous item) and should not be recorded into the
> type.
Seems reasonable.
>
> If it's ok, please ignore my previous patch (version#3) and I will post the updated patch shortly.
OK. FWIW, I think we're ready to ACK on this. So get it posted :-)
jeff