From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C1EF3858403 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 14:50:58 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 0C1EF3858403 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 0C1EF3858403 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=2001:470:142:3::10 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1706885459; cv=none; b=f7lypqQJ0d8B20T3WtTAHLhJ49pZIAxeUG6mM77XS8gWWNl6+YmtfL0n0JKohiD2OrY0VbPMaxR5zMCX+2263h82mvDDYODrPCvhZf0bYs3wzE+8ZhWWFpdwBfkn8579k0oD9SaSk/+yEfTvFGcCR3bzadZPcTM5wR7RmAZokY0= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1706885459; c=relaxed/simple; bh=noiEOSrgc+cIq2foD7xDhWXHCybsn+Z3FEJtai0ravs=; h=DKIM-Signature:Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=GDaIEppYoM61mzrBiKrW9S9aGUmT6ZJR4E8QLt5XJ3rRYUFGBult4wP1AxBTjRTtD8v6J6n81LYS6PHbtFT0b0nildkE3Wyn10o2QdftPaOnOb0vq46LzyHGikWWHStQ1nZgTqcJhKfkaK+BvP5UQfbNIbTUk+RQsz6yNnW4qZ8= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org Received: from mgamail.intel.com ([192.198.163.8]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rVusZ-000413-3B for gcc-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Feb 2024 09:50:56 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1706885455; x=1738421455; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=noiEOSrgc+cIq2foD7xDhWXHCybsn+Z3FEJtai0ravs=; b=YV+haspnXdValR+HfPNm86zx+4D2pLOJqcJAb92dSH3lWBeZEXgOOfg1 UqiZvm85KAG885wrE4M4PF6sdYml2QsQDRh4GqH0Gqe1V2nip2vgXF62M SsMEENLLxVVOn7V3nVEE0AphO9fDs67EnWrItFyMA4i0V79lJPRSRHdPW k9RaTvNRQxg79LGU9N/XcQvhPJynZBRNOL6l6Wpggw5zfCM9EtoMo3iRH 71s8uCp6jnWHgXoOG3LxPcPOhvqQHbOzUl+3MR+NwFFZFpbyXaDPIPQ/p 3+WQuoSCZgKiT8yhdVyx6VPmnDIUmteb6TBP+dTjTKcvEu6U/OopOPmmR A==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10971"; a="17697628" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.05,238,1701158400"; d="scan'208";a="17697628" Received: from orviesa008.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.148]) by fmvoesa102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 02 Feb 2024 06:50:52 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.05,238,1701158400"; d="scan'208";a="416461" Received: from tassilo.jf.intel.com (HELO tassilo) ([10.54.38.190]) by orviesa008-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 02 Feb 2024 06:50:53 -0800 Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2024 06:50:51 -0800 From: Andi Kleen To: Prathamesh Kulkarni Cc: gcc-patches@gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] Add tests for C/C++ musttail attributes Message-ID: References: <20240202091322.1898280-1-ak@linux.intel.com> <20240202091322.1898280-5-ak@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: none client-ip=192.198.163.8; envelope-from=ak@linux.intel.com; helo=mgamail.intel.com X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-2.276,DKIM_SIGNED=0.1,DKIM_VALID=-0.1,DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1,SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001,SPF_NONE=0.001,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_EF,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_NONE,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: > Sorry, I wasn't clear about this in previous patch -- noipa will > subsume other ipa attributes, > so there's no need to have noinline, noclone along with noipa. > int __attribute__((noipa)) callee(int i) should be sufficient for > disabling IPA optimizations involving callee. I thought you were worried about extra IPA optimizations. I prefer to clearly say what I mean (besides it was just copied from existing tests), so the verbose form is better. So if e.g. gcc ever re-adds the old RTL inliner it wouldn't break. -Andi