* [PATCH] x86: Document -fcf-protection requires i686 or newer
@ 2021-10-21 16:47 H.J. Lu
2021-10-21 19:04 ` Uros Bizjak
2021-10-29 22:03 ` Eric Gallager
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: H.J. Lu @ 2021-10-21 16:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-patches
PR target/98667
* doc/invoke.texi: Document -fcf-protection requires i686 or
new.
---
gcc/doc/invoke.texi | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
index c66a25fcd69..71992b8c597 100644
--- a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
+++ b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
@@ -15542,7 +15542,8 @@ which functions and calls should be skipped from instrumentation
(@pxref{Function Attributes}).
Currently the x86 GNU/Linux target provides an implementation based
-on Intel Control-flow Enforcement Technology (CET).
+on Intel Control-flow Enforcement Technology (CET) which works for
+i686 processor or newer.
@item -fstack-protector
@opindex fstack-protector
--
2.32.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] x86: Document -fcf-protection requires i686 or newer
2021-10-21 16:47 [PATCH] x86: Document -fcf-protection requires i686 or newer H.J. Lu
@ 2021-10-21 19:04 ` Uros Bizjak
2021-10-21 19:08 ` H.J. Lu
2021-10-29 22:03 ` Eric Gallager
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Uros Bizjak @ 2021-10-21 19:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: H.J. Lu; +Cc: gcc-patches
On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 6:47 PM H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> PR target/98667
> * doc/invoke.texi: Document -fcf-protection requires i686 or
> new.
Obvious patch?
Uros.
> ---
> gcc/doc/invoke.texi | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
> index c66a25fcd69..71992b8c597 100644
> --- a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
> +++ b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
> @@ -15542,7 +15542,8 @@ which functions and calls should be skipped from instrumentation
> (@pxref{Function Attributes}).
>
> Currently the x86 GNU/Linux target provides an implementation based
> -on Intel Control-flow Enforcement Technology (CET).
> +on Intel Control-flow Enforcement Technology (CET) which works for
> +i686 processor or newer.
>
> @item -fstack-protector
> @opindex fstack-protector
> --
> 2.32.0
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] x86: Document -fcf-protection requires i686 or newer
2021-10-21 19:04 ` Uros Bizjak
@ 2021-10-21 19:08 ` H.J. Lu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: H.J. Lu @ 2021-10-21 19:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Uros Bizjak; +Cc: gcc-patches
On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 12:04 PM Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 6:47 PM H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > PR target/98667
> > * doc/invoke.texi: Document -fcf-protection requires i686 or
> > new.
>
> Obvious patch?
I am checking it in and backporting it to release branches.
Thanks.
> Uros.
>
> > ---
> > gcc/doc/invoke.texi | 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
> > index c66a25fcd69..71992b8c597 100644
> > --- a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
> > +++ b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
> > @@ -15542,7 +15542,8 @@ which functions and calls should be skipped from instrumentation
> > (@pxref{Function Attributes}).
> >
> > Currently the x86 GNU/Linux target provides an implementation based
> > -on Intel Control-flow Enforcement Technology (CET).
> > +on Intel Control-flow Enforcement Technology (CET) which works for
> > +i686 processor or newer.
> >
> > @item -fstack-protector
> > @opindex fstack-protector
> > --
> > 2.32.0
> >
--
H.J.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] x86: Document -fcf-protection requires i686 or newer
2021-10-21 16:47 [PATCH] x86: Document -fcf-protection requires i686 or newer H.J. Lu
2021-10-21 19:04 ` Uros Bizjak
@ 2021-10-29 22:03 ` Eric Gallager
2021-11-01 11:21 ` H.J. Lu
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Eric Gallager @ 2021-10-29 22:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: H.J. Lu; +Cc: gcc-patches
On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 12:49 PM H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches
<gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> PR target/98667
> * doc/invoke.texi: Document -fcf-protection requires i686 or
> new.
> ---
> gcc/doc/invoke.texi | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
> index c66a25fcd69..71992b8c597 100644
> --- a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
> +++ b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
> @@ -15542,7 +15542,8 @@ which functions and calls should be skipped from instrumentation
> (@pxref{Function Attributes}).
>
> Currently the x86 GNU/Linux target provides an implementation based
> -on Intel Control-flow Enforcement Technology (CET).
> +on Intel Control-flow Enforcement Technology (CET) which works for
> +i686 processor or newer.
I think "processor" should be pluralized to "processors"? Also,
possibly a missing comma after "(CET)"?
>
> @item -fstack-protector
> @opindex fstack-protector
> --
> 2.32.0
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] x86: Document -fcf-protection requires i686 or newer
2021-10-29 22:03 ` Eric Gallager
@ 2021-11-01 11:21 ` H.J. Lu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: H.J. Lu @ 2021-11-01 11:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Gallager; +Cc: gcc-patches
On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 3:04 PM Eric Gallager <egall@gwmail.gwu.edu> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 12:49 PM H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches
> <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> >
> > PR target/98667
> > * doc/invoke.texi: Document -fcf-protection requires i686 or
> > new.
> > ---
> > gcc/doc/invoke.texi | 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
> > index c66a25fcd69..71992b8c597 100644
> > --- a/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
> > +++ b/gcc/doc/invoke.texi
> > @@ -15542,7 +15542,8 @@ which functions and calls should be skipped from instrumentation
> > (@pxref{Function Attributes}).
> >
> > Currently the x86 GNU/Linux target provides an implementation based
> > -on Intel Control-flow Enforcement Technology (CET).
> > +on Intel Control-flow Enforcement Technology (CET) which works for
> > +i686 processor or newer.
>
> I think "processor" should be pluralized to "processors"? Also,
> possibly a missing comma after "(CET)"?
>
Can you submit a patch?
Thanks.
--
H.J.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-11-01 11:22 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-10-21 16:47 [PATCH] x86: Document -fcf-protection requires i686 or newer H.J. Lu
2021-10-21 19:04 ` Uros Bizjak
2021-10-21 19:08 ` H.J. Lu
2021-10-29 22:03 ` Eric Gallager
2021-11-01 11:21 ` H.J. Lu
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).