On 13.10.2020 13:40, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> (Interestingly, zero length
> alternatives do appear to compile, and this is clearly a bug.)
Why? The replacement code may be intended to be all NOPs.
Jan
On 28/09/2020 13:37, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 28.09.2020 14:30, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Commit b586a81b7a90 ("x86/CET: Fix build following c/s 43b98e7190") had
>> to introduce a number of #ifdef-s to make the build work with older tool
>> chains. Introduce an assembler macro covering for tool chains n
On 13.10.2020 13:20, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 28/09/2020 13:30, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Commit b586a81b7a90 ("x86/CET: Fix build following c/s 43b98e7190") had
>> to introduce a number of #ifdef-s to make the build work with older tool
>> chains. Introduce an assembler macro covering for tool chains
On 28/09/2020 13:30, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Commit b586a81b7a90 ("x86/CET: Fix build following c/s 43b98e7190") had
> to introduce a number of #ifdef-s to make the build work with older tool
> chains. Introduce an assembler macro covering for tool chains not
> knowing of CET-SS, allowing some conditi
On 28.09.2020 14:30, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Commit b586a81b7a90 ("x86/CET: Fix build following c/s 43b98e7190") had
> to introduce a number of #ifdef-s to make the build work with older tool
> chains. Introduce an assembler macro covering for tool chains not
> knowing of CET-SS, allowing some conditi
Commit b586a81b7a90 ("x86/CET: Fix build following c/s 43b98e7190") had
to introduce a number of #ifdef-s to make the build work with older tool
chains. Introduce an assembler macro covering for tool chains not
knowing of CET-SS, allowing some conditionals where just SETSSBSY is the
problem to be d
