This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Should CET be enabled by default in GCC8
- From: Richard Biener <rguenther at suse dot de>
- To: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com>
- Cc: GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, "H. J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>, "Tsimbalist, Igor V" <igor dot v dot tsimbalist at intel dot com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 12:30:03 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: Should CET be enabled by default in GCC8
- References: <CAFULd4aNY_N7dVMOxS7d9s2=kWPxrtrNTz_h-jgkvi9Drd4Pcw@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Currently, CET is enabled by default for linux if target supports
> multi-byte NOPs and if assembler supports CET insn. Effectively, with
> newer binutils, CET support is an opt-out feature.
> I don't think this should be the case, and I propose to consider CET
> as an opt-in feature. Multi-byte NOPs have non-zero cost (at least
> they increase the binary). If someone wants to enable the feature, it
> can be done in less surprising way to --enable-cet during configure
> I'd like to hear the opinion of RMs, if CET should remain to be an
> opt-out feature by default?
My personal opinion is that CET should be opt-in (I explicitely
disable it for SUSE). I'm not sure if it doesn't go the way MPX
did and given there's not even rumors when silicon will have
an actual implementation nor whether the competition will
(be allowed to) implement it it's too early to force it on everybody.
Just my 2 cents - I can live with providing --disable-cet manually
I note that changes.html doesn't say anything about this new
default or the way to disable it which IMHO needs fixing
(in either case).