The revised patch is attached. The differences are in what options are defined and propagated to Makefile for CET enabling. -iclude option is dropped, each needed asm file is processed separately.
Igor > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Lance Taylor [mailto:i...@airs.com] > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 6:45 PM > To: Tsimbalist, Igor V <igor.v.tsimbal...@intel.com> > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/22] Enable building libbacktrace with Intel CET > > "Tsimbalist, Igor V" <igor.v.tsimbal...@intel.com> writes: > > > > > This file is included to simplify building a library that might have > > assembler files. > > This is an auxiliary file to automate creation of a special section in > > an output object > > file. Without it every assembler file has to be modified by hand to > > include a special > > section. This "-include cet.h " option is specified at a high level to > > not bother if a > > library has or does not have assembler files. The option either has no > > effect > if > > all source files are C/C++ or used only for assembler file > > processing. The file itself > > has an assembler code. The same code is generated by the compiler for > each > > input C/C++/etc. files. > > > > In real life a user who is going to write an assemble code and have it > > CET compatible > > has to add a special section to mark the object file as CET compatible. > > I guess I don't understand how you can assume that general assembly code > is CET compatible. And if you know it is CET compatible then adding the > section seems simple enough; people already do it routinely for > .note.GNU-stack. > > In any case a -include file such as you describe does not belong in a > general FLAGS variable, it belongs in CPPFLAGS or, ideally, ASPPFLAGS if > there were such a Make variable. > > Ian
0009-Enable-building-libbacktrace-with-Intel-CET.PATCH
Description: 0009-Enable-building-libbacktrace-with-Intel-CET.PATCH
