This would solve a common pattern in the kernel where folks are using `extern inline` with `gnu_inline` semantics or worse (empty `asm("");` statements) in certain places where it would be much more preferable to have this attribute. Thank you very much Martin for writing it.
> is direct equivalent of Clang's no_stack_protector. > Unlike Clang, I chose to name it no_stack_protect because we already > have stack_protect attribute (used with -fstack-protector-explicit). That's pretty easy for us to work around the differences in the kernel, but one final plea for the users; it would simplify users' codebases not to have to shim this for differences between compilers. If I had a dollar for every time I had to implement something in LLVM where a different identifier or flag would be more consistent with another part of the codebase...I'm sure there's many examples of this on LLVM's side too, but I would prefer to stop the proliferation of subtle differences like this that harm toolchain portability when possible and when we can proactively address. -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers