On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 12:02:45PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 11:21 AM Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 11:51:49AM -0500, Qing Zhao wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > This is a PING for this patch for gcc11 stage 1. > > > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-April/544058.html > > > <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-April/544058.html> > > > > > > Please take a look on it. > > > > Hi! > > > > I think the best course of action here would be the rebase these patches > > and resend them against the current GCC code base as inline patches > > (not attachments as you sent earlier), following the details here: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html > > > > > > https://outflux.net/slides/2019/lpc/gcc-and-clang.pdf > > > > <https://outflux.net/slides/2019/lpc/gcc-and-clang.pdf> > > > > Tested on x86-64 with bootstrapping GCC trunk, regression tests > > > > exposed several new regressions, these new regressions are > > > > fixed by 2 following patches I will send in next two emails. > > > > I look forward to seeing these! I'd really like to have the feature > > available as another defense in depth for the Linux kernel. > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-May/545081.html
Thanks! Would it be helpful for me to report a "Tested-by: Kees Cook..." or something similar on that thread? What's the best way to indicate that kind of review on gcc-patches? -- Kees Cook
