On 10/12/2017 02:12 AM, Tsimbalist, Igor V wrote:
>> 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.
> Yes, you are right.
>
>
riginal Message-
> From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
> ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Law
> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 8:07 AM
> To: Tsimbalist, Igor V <igor.v.tsimbal...@intel.com>; gcc-
> patc...@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: richard.guent...@gmail.com
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
nu.org
> > Cc: richard.guent...@gmail.com; Tsimbalist, Igor V
> > <igor.v.tsimbal...@intel.com>
> > Subject: RE: 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
> >
;; gcc-
> > patc...@gcc.gnu.org
> > Cc: richard.guent...@gmail.com
> > Subject: Re: 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling
> >
> > On 09/19/2017 07:39 AM, Tsimbalist, Igor V wrote:
> > > Here is an updated patch (version #2). Th
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 12:44 AM
> To: Tsimbalist, Igor V <igor.v.tsimbal...@intel.com>; gcc-
> patc...@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: richard.guent...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-
On 09/19/2017 07:39 AM, Tsimbalist, Igor V wrote:
> Here is an updated patch (version #2). The main differences are:
>
> - Change attribute and option names;
> - Add additional parameter to gimple_build_call_from_tree by adding a type
> parameter and
> use it 'nocf_check' attribute
.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 2:14 PM
> To: Tsimbalist, Igor V <igor.v.tsimbal...@intel.com>
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling
>
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Tsimbalist, Igor V
> &l
Cc: 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org' <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Tsimbalist, Igor V
>> <igor.v.tsimbal...@intel.com>
>> Subject: RE: 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling
>>
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: Tsimbalist, Igor V
>> > S
ugust 18, 2017 3:53 PM
> > > To: Tsimbalist, Igor V <igor.v.tsimbal...@intel.com>
> > > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> > > Subject: Re: 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Tsimbalist, Igor
v.tsimbal...@intel.com>
>> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
>> Subject: Re: 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling
>>
>> On 08/15/2017 07:42 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>> Please change the names to omit 'with_', thus just notrack and
>>>
alist, Igor V <igor.v.tsimbal...@intel.com>
>> Subject: RE: 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling
>>
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 10:50 PM
>>
On 09/12/2017 09:59 AM, Tsimbalist, Igor V wrote:
>
>> Q. Do we need to do anything with ICF (identical code folding) and CFE?
>> Given two functions which have the same implementation in gimple, except
>> that one has a notrack indirect call and the other has a tracked indirect
>> call,
>>
> -Original Message-
> From: Tsimbalist, Igor V
> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 5:59 PM
> To: 'Jeff Law' <l...@redhat.com>; 'gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org' patc...@gcc.gnu.org>
> Cc: Tsimbalist, Igor V <igor.v.tsimbal...@intel.com>
> Subject: RE: 0001-Part-
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 10:50 PM
> To: Tsimbalist, Igor V <igor.v.tsimbal...@intel.com>; 'gcc-
> patc...@gcc.gnu.org' <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: 0001-Part-1.-Add-gener
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 10:32 PM
> To: Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com>; Tsimbalist, Igor V
> <igor.v.tsimbal...@intel.com>
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject:
> -Original Message-
> From: Tsimbalist, Igor V
> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 4:43 PM
> To: 'Richard Biener' <richard.guent...@gmail.com>
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Tsimbalist, Igor V
> <igor.v.tsimbal...@intel.com>
> Subject: RE: 0001-Part-1.-Add-ge
On 08/01/2017 02:56 AM, Tsimbalist, Igor V wrote:
> Part#1. Add generic part for Intel CET enabling.
>
> The spec is available at
>
> https://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/managed/4d/2a/control-flow-enforcement-technology-preview.pdf
>
> High-level design.
> --
>
> A
On 08/15/2017 07:42 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> Please change the names to omit 'with_', thus just notrack
> and GF_CALL_NOTRACK.
>
> I think 'notrack' is somewhat unspecific of a name, what prevented
> you to use 'nocet'?
I think we should look for something better than notrack. I think
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 3:53 PM
> To: Tsimbalist, Igor V <igor.v.tsimbal...@intel.com>
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-e
...@intel.com>
>> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
>> Subject: Re: 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Tsimbalist, Igor V
>> <igor.v.tsimbal...@intel.com> wrote:
>> > Part#1. Add generi
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 3:43 PM
> To: Tsimbalist, Igor V <igor.v.tsimbal...@intel.com>
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-e
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Tsimbalist, Igor V
wrote:
> Part#1. Add generic part for Intel CET enabling.
>
> The spec is available at
>
> https://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/managed/4d/2a/control-flow-enforcement-technology-preview.pdf
>
> High-level
23 matches
Mail list logo