On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 02:15:49PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 08:53:13PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 01:37:01PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > That is a lot more typing then > > > asm(""); > > > > That's why a macro with a hopefully more descriptive name would be > > telling more than a mere asm(""). > > My point is that you should explain at *every use* of this why you cannot > have tail calls *there*. This is very unusual, after all. > > There are *very* few places where you want to prevent tail calls, that's > why there is no attribute for it. > > > Segher
Well, there is -fno-optimize-sibling-calls, but we wouldn't be able to use it via the optimize attribute for the same reason we couldn't use no-stack-protector.