PING[STAGE 1][PATCH][x86][1/3]: Add -mzero-caller-saved-regs=[skip|used-gpr|all-gpr|used|all]

[H.J. Lu]

On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 12:48 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 12:02:45PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 11:21 AM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 11:51:49AM -0500, Qing Zhao wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > This is a PING for this patch for gcc11 stage 1.
> > > >
> > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-April/544058.html <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-April/544058.html>
> > > >
> > > > Please take a look on it.
> > >
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > I think the best course of action here would be the rebase these patches
> > > and resend them against the current GCC code base as inline patches
> > > (not attachments as you sent earlier), following the details here:
> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html
> > >
> > > > > https://outflux.net/slides/2019/lpc/gcc-and-clang.pdf <https://outflux.net/slides/2019/lpc/gcc-and-clang.pdf>
> > > > > Tested on  x86-64 with bootstrapping GCC trunk, regression tests exposed several new regressions, these new regressions are
> > > > > fixed by 2 following patches I will send in next two emails.
> > >
> > > I look forward to seeing these! I'd really like to have the feature
> > > available as another defense in depth for the Linux kernel.
> > >
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-May/545081.html
>
> Thanks!
>
> Would it be helpful for me to report a "Tested-by: Kees Cook..." or
> something similar on that thread? What's the best way to indicate that
> kind of review on gcc-patches?

Feedback of testing on Linux kernel is very useful.

-- 
H.J.