From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 100994 invoked by alias); 14 Jul 2017 16:28:08 -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 99687 invoked by uid 89); 14 Jul 2017 16:28:07 -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=suspected, H*M:848f, HContent-Transfer-Encoding:8bit 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; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 16:28:05 +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 6B0CB27487E; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 16:28:00 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 6B0CB27487E 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=pass smtp.mailfrom=law@redhat.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com 6B0CB27487E Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn-116-196.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.116.196]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E91DE5C3FA; Fri, 14 Jul 2017 16:27:59 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFA/RFC] Stack clash mitigation patch 02/08 From: Jeff Law To: Segher Boessenkool , Jeff Law Cc: gcc-patches References: <8a9cdbc9-dc96-e793-0147-3f09af2a26fa@gmail.com> <20170713014406.GX13471@gate.crashing.org> <59437b9f-e0d8-02dd-06fd-1b2542213cf0@redhat.com> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 16:28:00 -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: <59437b9f-e0d8-02dd-06fd-1b2542213cf0@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-07/txt/msg00844.txt.bz2 On 07/13/2017 04:54 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 07/12/2017 07:44 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >>> /* The default is not to move the stack pointer. */ >>> +/* The default is not to move the stack pointer, unless we are using >>> + stack clash prevention stack checking. */ >>> #ifndef STACK_CHECK_MOVING_SP >>> -#define STACK_CHECK_MOVING_SP 0 >>> +#define STACK_CHECK_MOVING_SP\ >>> + (flag_stack_check == STACK_CLASH_BUILTIN_STACK_CHECK) >>> #endif >> >> Missing space before that backslash. > Similarly. > >> >> The documentation for STACK_CHECK_CONFIG_SP needs updating (its default >> is no longer zero, for one). > Yea. Missed that. I actually need to go back and look at this again. > I'm not entirely sure it's necessary -- it may be a relic from when I > thought more -fstack-check infrastructure was going to be reusable. Just a follow-up to myself. As I suspected, we can just drop the STACK_CHECK_MOVING_SP changes. Between changes in overall direction and moving stack-clash protection out of -fstack-check= STACK_CHECK_MOVING_SP changes simply aren't needed anymore. jeff