On 11/27/20 3:54 PM, H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 6:24 AM Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote:
>>
>> OK.
>>
>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2020, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>>> PR other/98027
>>> * doc/install: Default to --enable-cet=auto.
>>> ---
>>> gcc/doc/install.texi | 9 ++++-----
>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/gcc/doc/install.texi b/gcc/doc/install.texi
>>> index 5f879ca4cea..021c347cc09 100644
>>> --- a/gcc/doc/install.texi
>>> +++ b/gcc/doc/install.texi
>>> @@ -2259,11 +2259,10 @@ instrumentation, see @option{-fcf-protection}
>>> option. When
>>> to add @option{-fcf-protection} and, if needed, other target
>>> specific options to a set of building options.
>>>
>>> -The option is disabled by default. When @code{--enable-cet=auto}
>>> -is used, it is enabled on Linux/x86 if target binutils
>>> -supports @code{Intel CET} instructions and disabled otherwise.
>>> -In this case the target libraries are configured to get additional
>>> -@option{-fcf-protection} option.
>>> +@code{--enable-cet=auto} is default. CET is enabled on Linux/x86 if
>>> +target binutils supports @code{Intel CET} instructions and disabled
>>> +otherwise. In this case, the target libraries are configured to get
>>> +additional @option{-fcf-protection} option.
>>>
>>> @item --with-riscv-attribute=@samp{yes}, @samp{no} or @samp{default}
>>> Generate RISC-V attribute by default, in order to record extra build
>>>
>>
>
> OK for backport to GCC 10?
I only found that because of failing package builds in a test rebuild. See
PR98025. Is it safe to backport that, if it breaks the ABI of a runtime library
shipped with GCC 10?
Matthias
