From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 61194 invoked by alias); 28 Sep 2017 23:29:07 -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 61059 invoked by uid 89); 28 Sep 2017 23:29:07 -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=H*M:baf6, central, his, documents 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; Thu, 28 Sep 2017 23:29:05 +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 7F5CA4E4C8; Thu, 28 Sep 2017 23:29:04 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 7F5CA4E4C8 Authentication-Results: ext-mx09.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx09.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=law@redhat.com Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn-112-18.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.112.18]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8900A51893; Thu, 28 Sep 2017 23:29:01 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: 0005-Part-5.-Add-x86-CET-documentation To: Joseph Myers , Florian Weimer Cc: Sandra Loosemore , "Tsimbalist, Igor V" , Uros Bizjak , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" References: <59C87B61.4010400@codesourcery.com> <59CB1DB9.1010700@codesourcery.com> From: Jeff Law Message-ID: Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 23:29:00 -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: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-09/txt/msg01917.txt.bz2 On 09/27/2017 11:01 AM, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> This is part of the ABI GCC implements, so it has to be documented somewhere, >> and not just as part of the GCC source code. >> >> CET is not properly described in the ABI supplement and I don't think this >> will change, so detailed documentation in the GCC manual is very much >> desirable. > > Isn't this a matter to take up further in the thread HJ started on the ABI > mailing lists, or a new such thread (possibly e.g. sending pull requests > that build further on his wording, or propose alternative wording, to > clarify them things left unclear there, with a goal of getting it clearly > defined in the master sources for x86_64 and x86)? Clearly the best > result would be proper documentation in the ABI and the GCC manual > cross-referencing the relevant ABI documents. The documentation should be AFAICT independent of the compiler in use -- ie, gcc, llvm and icc all should agree on where/when these new instructions should be inserted. Which argues that the documentation belongs in the ABI docs, not the GCC docs. *users* aren't really going to care about these kinds of details. So I think the summary is that I agree with Joseph on this. Let's push it into the ABI docs. HJ can and should play a central role in making that happen. jeff