From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 91924 invoked by alias); 22 Aug 2017 15:35:32 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 91906 invoked by uid 89); 22 Aug 2017 15:35:31 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:1567 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 22 Aug 2017 15:35:30 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C410267F8; Tue, 22 Aug 2017 15:35:29 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 0C410267F8 Authentication-Results: ext-mx06.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx06.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=law@redhat.com Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn-116-59.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.116.59]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D59637B13C; Tue, 22 Aug 2017 15:35:28 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFA/RFC] Stack clash mitigation patch 01/08 - V3 To: Martin Sebor , gcc-patches References: <4194c6f8-4efb-3eaa-f165-367b252605c0@redhat.com> <87da148c-77f9-84dd-983f-749d7421b575@gmail.com> From: Jeff Law Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 15:58:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87da148c-77f9-84dd-983f-749d7421b575@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-08/txt/msg01283.txt.bz2 On 08/19/2017 12:22 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 07/30/2017 11:35 PM, Jeff Law wrote: >> This patch introduces the stack clash protection options >> >> Changes since V2: >> >> Adds two new params. The first controls the size of the guard area. >> This controls the threshold for when a function prologue requires >> probes. The second controls the probing interval -- ie, once probes are >> needed, how often do we emit them. These are really meant more for >> developers to experiment with than users. Regardless I did go ahead and >> document them./PARAM >> >> It also adds some sanity checking WRT combining stack clash protection >> with -fstack-check. > > Just a minor nit and suggestion: > > "supproted" -> "supported" > > + warning_at (UNKNOWN_LOCATION, 0, > + "-fstack-clash_protection is not supproted on targets " > + "where the stack grows from lower to higher addresses"); > > and quote the name of the options in diagnostics, i.e., use either > > "%<"-fstack-clash_protection%> ..." > > or > > "%qs is not supported...", "-fstack-clash_protection" > > as you did in error ("value of parameter %qs must be a power of 2", > ompiler_params[i].option); > > Likewise in > > + warning_at (UNKNOWN_LOCATION, 0, > + "-fstack-check= and -fstack-clash_protection are mutually " > + "exclusive. Disabling -fstack-check="); Thanks. I settled on the %< %> style. None of the other warnings in that area use either. Otherwise I would have just selected whatever was most commonly used in that code. jeff