Re: Broken check rejecting -fcf-protection and -mindirect-branch=thunk-extern
On 28 April 2020 17:14:49 BST, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 02:41:33PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> Its fine to focus on userspace first, but the kernel is far more >simple. >> >> Looking at that presentation, the only thing missing for kernel is >the >> notrack thunks, in the unlikely case that such code would be >tolerated >> (Frankly, I don't expect Xen or Linux to run with notrack enabled, as >> there is no legacy code to be concerned with). > >Uhhh.. ftrace and kretprobes play dodgy games with the >return stack, doesn't that make the CET thing slightly more >interesting? Sure, there is work to do to enable CET. But Andy's point is that we deliberately fixed up retpoline to be register-based *specifically* for the purpose of being CET-compatible, so it's somewhat daft for GCC to be claiming they are incompatible. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Re: Official GCC git repository
On Thu, 2008-03-13 at 12:47 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote: > We will never use git exclusively as long as it requires as many > workflow changes for people as it currently does. This is not me > speaking for the gcc community, this is me telling it like it is based > on experience moving us to svn. > Even simple things, like having to do git diff -rHEAD instead of git > diff to see added files, etc. > Regardless of how fast it is, until the UI is something people don't > have to think about to work with, it's not going to fly. Surely you jest? Isn't GCC using something really weird at the moment like Subversion? -- dwmw2
Re: Official GCC git repository
On Thu, 2008-03-13 at 13:35 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote: > If by "really weird" you mean "nobody has any real complaints about > the way it works and are happy it is close to what they were using > before", then yes, they are using something "really weird". To be honest, I find it weird that Subversion even exists. Precisely because it _is_ so close to what people were using before, as you point out. I've never really understood why anyone would bother to change from CVS to SVN -- it just seems to be part of the 'one VCS per project' insanity. At least with distributed version control systems, you get a real benefit and not just change for the sake of it. But again there seems to be a multitude of contenders because everyone wants to write their own, rather than settling on one. I've mostly given up on learning to use different version control systems. Subversion was the last one I tried, and as soon as I stopped banging my head against the wall, I just gave up on the project I was trying to work on and did something else instead. There's plenty of projects out there which need contributors and which _don't_ make life harder for developers by requiring them to learn some new and pointlessly different VCS. Later I learned about git-svn and just starting mirroring stuff from all kinds of other VCSs into git, and life got a whole lot easier. -- dwmw2
Re: Official GCC git repository
On Thu, 2008-03-13 at 18:04 +, Andrew Haley wrote: > It's not possible for a VCS to be "different" -- it can only be > different from some other VCS. That's true. For a non-distributed VCS, the 'norm' is generally considered to be CVS. Subversion is "different from CVS", for a limited number of minor reasons which, although real, just don't ever seem to be worth the pain of the difference in my experience. > And from that POV, git is "pointlessly different" from other VCS. People were trying to make distributed version control systems workable for a long time before git came along, but without much success. For _distributed_ version control systems, many people consider git to be the 'norm', just as CVS was for non-distributed VCS, and all the others are "pointlessly different". I could never understand why anyone would use anything but CVS (if that works for them), or git. The VCS-du-jour craze just confuses me. But I don't hack on gcc very often, and when I do I'm perfectly capable of shadowing it into a normal version control system -- so my opinion doesn't really matter much. -- dwmw2
Re: Official GCC git repository
On Sat, 2008-04-19 at 11:34 -0400, NightStrike wrote: > On 4/19/08, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The problem with commits is that the average is not what matters. > > Commits are bursty. > > People make 5 commits to different branches in the course of a minute > > or two, then there is nothing for another 15 minutes, etc. > > Oh. Well... I still had fun writing the script :) Yeah, if performance is an issue, it'd probably help to play with responses to the commit trigger -- maybe wait for 2 minutes for the repo to become idle, and then prevent another update within 5 minutes (picking numbers out of my wossname). -- dwmw2
Re: Git repository with full GCC history
On Fri, 2007-06-01 at 10:39 +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: > How often will it be synced with upstream SVN? While you're at it, > would David mind to also place a binutils, glibc and glibc-ports GIT > repo next to it? That way, there would be a nice single point of GIT > repos for the whole toolchain. Sounds like a fine plan. Bernie, if you want to create these in your home directory I'll move them to /srv/git next to gcc.git. -- dwmw2
Re: [OT] Re: Git repository with full GCC history
On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 19:57 -0700, Harvey Harrison wrote: > If I can reproduce it I'll see if I can find some webspace. If you mail me a SSH public key you can also put it on git.infradead.org. -- dwmw2
