On 09/12/2017 09:40 AM, Tsimbalist, Igor V wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com] >> Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 10:32 PM >> To: Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com>; Tsimbalist, Igor V >> <igor.v.tsimbal...@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
