On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 1:24 PM Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz> wrote: > > PING^5
So can we use the same identifier as clang here as Nick requests? Thus, OK with re-naming everything alongside no_stack_protector. It isn't really the opposite of the stack_protect attribute since that only protects when -fstack-protector-explicit is enabled. Thanks, Richard. > On 8/17/20 2:35 PM, Martin Liška wrote: > > PING^4 > > > > On 7/23/20 1:10 PM, Martin Liška wrote: > >> PING^3 > >> > >> On 6/24/20 11:09 AM, Martin Liška wrote: > >>> PING^2 > >>> > >>> On 6/10/20 10:12 AM, Martin Liška wrote: > >>>> PING^1 > >>>> > >>>> On 5/25/20 3:10 PM, Martin Liška wrote: > >>>>> On 5/21/20 4:53 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > >>>>>> On 5/21/20 5:28 AM, Martin Liška wrote: > >>>>>>> On 5/18/20 10:37 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > >>>>>>>> I know there are some somewhat complex cases the attribute exclusion > >>>>>>>> mechanism isn't general enough to handle but this seems simple enough > >>>>>>>> that it should work. Unless I'm missing something that makes it not > >>>>>>>> feasible I would suggest to use it. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi Martin. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Do we have a better place where we check for attribute collision? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If by collision you mean the same thing as the mutual exclusion I was > >>>>>> talking about then that's done by creating an > >>>>>> attribute_spec::exclusions > >>>>>> array like for instance attr_cold_hot_exclusions in c-attribs.c and > >>>>>> pointing to it from the attribute_spec entries for each of > >>>>>> the mutually exclusive attributes in the attribute table. Everything > >>>>>> else is handled automatically by decl_attributes. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Martin > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks, I'm sending updated version of the patch that utilizes the > >>>>> conflict > >>>>> detection. > >>>>> > >>>>> Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests. > >>>>> > >>>>> Ready to be installed? > >>>>> Thanks, > >>>>> Martin > >>>> > >>> > >> > > >
