On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 6:15 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 6/23/21 2:38 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > Is there reason to prevent the inlining once instrumentation is done?
>
> No ;)
Here's another case that coincidentally came up yesterday. How should
these attributes behave in the case of __attribu
+ 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
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
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 5:19 AM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 1:24 PM Martin Liška wrote:
> >
> > PING^5
>
> So can we use the same identifier as clang here as Nick
> requests? Thus, OK with re-naming everything alongside
> no_stack_protector. It isn't really the opposite of
This would solve a common pattern in the kernel where folks are using
`extern inline` with `gnu_inline` semantics or worse (empty `asm("");`
statements) in certain places where it would be much more preferable
to have this attribute. Thank you very much Martin for writing it.
> is direct equivale
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.
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/
> >
> > Specifically the feature tes
