> 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.

Updated patch is attached.

Igor

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches-
> owner@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Law
> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 8:07 AM
> To: Tsimbalist, Igor V <igor.v.tsimbalist@intel.com>; gcc-
> patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: richard.guenther@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: 0001-Part-1.-Add-generic-part-for-Intel-CET-enabling
> 
> 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 reason is that the type with 'nocf_check' attribute implies different
> code generation. It will be
> >    done by setting affects_type_identity field to true for the attribute. That
> in turn will trigger
> >    needed or expected type checking;
> 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.
> 
> 
> >
> > - I propose to ignore the 'nocf_check' attribute if 'fcf-protection' option is
> not specified and output
> >    the warning about this. If there is no instrumentation the type with
> attribute should not be treated
> >    differently from type w/o the attribute (see previous item) and should
> not be recorded into the
> >    type.
> Seems reasonable.
> >
> > If it's ok, please ignore my previous patch (version#3) and I will post the
> updated patch shortly.
> OK.  FWIW, I think we're ready to ACK on this.  So get it posted :-)
> 
> jeff