On 10/05/2017 04:20 AM, Tsimbalist, Igor V wrote: > I would like to implement the patch in a bit different way depending on > answers I will get for > my following proposals: > > - I propose to make a type with 'nocf_check' attribute to be different from > type w/o the attribute. > The reason is that the type with 'nocf_check' attribute implies different > code generation. It will be > done by setting affects_type_identity field to true for the attribute. > That in turn will trigger > needed or expected type checking; Seems reasonable. As a result something like check_missing_nocf_check_attribute is going to just go away along with the code in *-typeck.c which called it, right? If so that seems like a nice cleanup.
> > - I propose to ignore the 'nocf_check' attribute if 'fcf-protection' option > is not specified and output > the warning about this. If there is no instrumentation the type with > attribute should not be treated > differently from type w/o the attribute (see previous item) and should not > be recorded into the > type. Seems reasonable. > > If it's ok, please ignore my previous patch (version#3) and I will post the > updated patch shortly. OK. FWIW, I think we're ready to ACK on this. So get it posted :-) jeff
