Re: [PATCH] inline: do not inline when no_profile_instrument_function is different

in Android. They are currently playing whack-a-mole with no_stack_protector. I'm not sure yet how we can better help them self diagnose, or whether we should consider a change in policy. I'm also not sure whether GCC's einliner corresponds with always_inline or not necessarily? -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers

Re: [PATCH] Implement no_stack_protect attribute.

+ correct kernel mailing list this time. On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 2:33 PM Nick Desaulniers wrote: > > Thanks for the quick feedback! > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 2:13 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 02:04:15PM -0700, Nick Desaulniers vi

Re: [PATCH] Implement no_stack_protect attribute.

Thanks for the quick feedback! On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 2:13 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 02:04:15PM -0700, Nick Desaulniers via Gcc-patches > wrote: > > Tangentially related question: > > We're running into a bug related to LTO for the kernel w

Re: [PATCH] Implement no_stack_protect attribute.

n't match, but I don't think that works for cross translation unit calls. I guess I was curious if others have ideas for solutions to this particular problem? Otherwise I plan to implement the above logic in LLVM. We'd eventually need matching logic in GCC to support LTO kernels not having the same bug. https://reviews.llvm.org/D87956 -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers

Re: [PATCH] Implement no_stack_protect attribute.

's many examples of this on LLVM's side too, but I would prefer to stop the proliferation of subtle differences like this that harm toolchain portability when possible and when we can proactively address. -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers

Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] compiler-gcc.h: add asm_inline definition

On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 6:11 AM Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 06:04:54PM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 5:14 PM Segher Boessenkool > > wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 04:42:58PM -0700, Nick Desaulniers v

Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] compiler-gcc.h: add asm_inline definition

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 5:14 PM Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 04:42:58PM -0700, Nick Desaulniers via gcc-patches > wrote: > > Just to prove my point about version checks being brittle, it looks > > like Rasmus' version check isn't even right.

Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] compiler-gcc.h: add asm_inline definition

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:56 PM Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 03:35:02PM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:03 PM Segher Boessenkool > > wrote: > > > And if instead you tested whether the actual feature you need works

Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] compiler-gcc.h: add asm_inline definition

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:03 PM Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 11:14:08AM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > > Here's the case that I think is perfect: > > https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2016/02/25/new-asm-flags-feature-for-x86-in-gcc-6/ > >

Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] compiler-gcc.h: add asm_inline definition

detection instead. This simplifies use of this feature even between codebases supporting multiple versions of GCC. (Also, I'm guessing the cost of another preprocessor define is near zero compared to parsing comments for -Wimplicit-fallthrough) -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers