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 equivalent of Clang's no_stack_protector.
> Unlike Clang, I chose to name it no_stack_protect because we already
> have stack_protect attribute (used with -fstack-protector-explicit).
That's pretty easy for us to work around the differences in the
kernel, but one final plea for the users; it would simplify users'
codebases not to have to shim this for differences between compilers.
If I had a dollar for every time I had to implement something in LLVM
where a different identifier or flag would be more consistent with
another part of the codebase...I'm sure there'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
