DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com C5D70C008B1C
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 13:53:05 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Andrew Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>,
        Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>, Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: mostly disable '-maccumulate-outgoing-args'
Message-ID: <20170316185305.lk4pi3a7b5n6uqjd@treble>
References: <CA+55aFw+WVjwPBPKpnKcZUkqX=mYWv7A6M44uJpmWuzGU0zpqw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALCETrWHdra-Po0rNrHn-cV2G=AM2pWR45rRf4t2RZfQR8Lqjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170307182855.262ezbon2pm67qfd@treble>
 <CA+55aFyjEuRLN6PMZZqi6k0rA6=AsTTZeN37eyyJM5ig-mnM4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170308173703.2h57rsltma3smbcm@treble>
 <CA+55aFw8ZVHtTDT8jCCtwP=oZFVKnDZVa3bMFdzt6+sGqFNeKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170308212959.ctb2ktqkg5l6r2xj@treble>
 <20170316154208.6c3mm6qjus3qtr6w@treble>
 <20170316133201.16b9a73a@gandalf.local.home>
 <20170316183635.wlwavbwsgkyjyjcw@treble>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170316183635.wlwavbwsgkyjyjcw@treble>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0.1 (2016-04-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1002
Lines: 28

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 01:36:35PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 01:32:01PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 10:42:08 -0500
> > Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > +	ACCUMULATE_OUTGOING_ARGS := 1
> > > +    endif
> > > +  endif
> > > +endif
> > > +
> > > +# Jump labels need '-maccumulate-outgoing-args' for gcc < 4.5.2 to prevent
> > 
> > Can we make a test instead? I hate testing versions, and things get
> > backported all the time. We usually like to have a test case instead of
> > relying on versions. Not to mention, a newer gcc may one day break.
> 
> Tests are generally better, but I'm not sure how to test for this
> cleanly.  The test is rather big for embedding in a makefile:
> 
>   https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22199
> 
> Any ideas?

After some snooping I discovered there's some precedent for doing this
in the scripts/gcc-*.sh files.  So maybe I'll add a test there and call
it from the Makefile.

-- 
Josh