[wwwdocs] powerpc: Another update for gcc-7/changes.html

[wwwdocs] powerpc: Another update for gcc-7/changes.html

[Segher Boessenkool]

Hi!

Here's another update.  Does this look okay?  (I'll fix the conflict
with Mike's patch, of course).

Thanks,


Segher


Index: htdocs/gcc-7/changes.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-7/changes.html,v
retrieving revision 1.77
diff -U 3 -r1.77 changes.html
--- htdocs/gcc-7/changes.html	17 Apr 2017 22:12:35 -0000	1.77
+++ htdocs/gcc-7/changes.html	20 Apr 2017 22:04:58 -0000
@@ -1005,6 +1005,11 @@
   <li>GCC now diagnoses inline assembly that clobbers register r2.
     This has always been invalid code, and is no longer quietly
     tolerated.</li>
+  <li>There are new options <code>-mstack-protector-guard=global</code>,
+    <code>-mstack-protector-guard=tls</code>,
+    <code>-mstack-protector-guard-reg=</code>, and
+    <code>-mstack-protector-guard-offset=</code>, to change how the stack
+    protector gets the value to use as canary.</li>
 </ul>
 
 <!-- <h3 id="s390">S/390, System z, IBM z Systems</h3> -->

Re: [wwwdocs] powerpc: Another update for gcc-7/changes.html

[Gerald Pfeifer]

Hi Segher,

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> +  <li>There are new options <code>-mstack-protector-guard=global</code>,
> +    <code>-mstack-protector-guard=tls</code>,
> +    <code>-mstack-protector-guard-reg=</code>, and
> +    <code>-mstack-protector-guard-offset=</code>, to change how the stack
> +    protector gets the value to use as canary.</li>

no comma before "to change".

And perhaps simply "New options...change how..."?

The patch is fine if you consider this feedback.

Well, one question:  Don't these options do more than just changing
how the value is obtained?  The way I read the documentation the first
two initiate generation of stack protection code?  Am I confused, or
should either the web patch or the documentation be adjusted?

Gerald

Re: [wwwdocs] powerpc: Another update for gcc-7/changes.html

[Segher Boessenkool]

Hi!  Thank you for looking at this.

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 02:39:36PM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2017, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > +  <li>There are new options <code>-mstack-protector-guard=global</code>,
> > +    <code>-mstack-protector-guard=tls</code>,
> > +    <code>-mstack-protector-guard-reg=</code>, and
> > +    <code>-mstack-protector-guard-offset=</code>, to change how the stack
> > +    protector gets the value to use as canary.</li>
> 
> no comma before "to change".

Oxford comma :-)  I'll get rid of it, sure.

> And perhaps simply "New options...change how..."?

Sure, good plan.

> The patch is fine if you consider this feedback.
> 
> Well, one question:  Don't these options do more than just changing
> how the value is obtained?  The way I read the documentation the first
> two initiate generation of stack protection code?  Am I confused, or
> should either the web patch or the documentation be adjusted?

No, this is correct.  The documentation could be clearer yes.  I'll
try to improve it; help is more than welcome ;-)


Segher

Re: [wwwdocs] powerpc: Another update for gcc-7/changes.html

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Fri, 21 Apr 2017, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>> +  <li>There are new options <code>-mstack-protector-guard=global</code>,
>>> +    <code>-mstack-protector-guard=tls</code>,
>>> +    <code>-mstack-protector-guard-reg=</code>, and
>>> +    <code>-mstack-protector-guard-offset=</code>, to change how the stack
>>> +    protector gets the value to use as canary.</li>
>> no comma before "to change".
> Oxford comma :-)  I'll get rid of it, sure.

The comma before "and" (and the last item in the list) is an
Oxford comma, and I'm all for keeping it.  The one before "to
change" would be an Amsterdam comma. :-)

>> Well, one question:  Don't these options do more than just changing
>> how the value is obtained?  The way I read the documentation the first
>> two initiate generation of stack protection code?  Am I confused, or
>> should either the web patch or the documentation be adjusted?
> No, this is correct.  The documentation could be clearer yes.  I'll
> try to improve it; help is more than welcome ;-)

I'll volunteer myself to review any patch (to see whether it helps
improve my understanding and otherwise), but am afraid I can't come
up with one.

Gerald