From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0492C43387 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 10:57:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D31520883 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 10:57:40 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="EH5GHziz" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730492AbfAIK5j (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jan 2019 05:57:39 -0500 Received: from mail-lj1-f196.google.com ([209.85.208.196]:39008 "EHLO mail-lj1-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730049AbfAIK5j (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jan 2019 05:57:39 -0500 Received: by mail-lj1-f196.google.com with SMTP id t9-v6so6108166ljh.6 for ; Wed, 09 Jan 2019 02:57:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Rp9agg0ydtjPWCMbWupsCarMyhx8m4ESfxME2ZSk+DA=; b=EH5GHziz3rk+pFTEtsg3oXegyBPWDM52F5GBfkRPztlq+Na8k7XQbEsxJJgbGbx/UH bFNwb3kvzeBMM7+WPcEXXkCrpx1InabW3WufWAFBTx1KeG/SvCl3yn/88ZF84tTh6dQ+ 96ebs8FZGJvW/vHD5ZRLsA0/o+k5DRX5d/kCweQKbGpIq9AnxnWPxCpno9SV7UthBSns dKLIea0xQH7B5FREngum/Tl5q1dQrVn3/QMki1upWD2yUETrdB8O2zZBdYqCu1SoxVgC EibB3VyvZrvlasNQI5YLTD0UgDEMPoFxnxlTJkE5R0z90QQq/CSSRbAAnf+1+uGJ3rYQ gXRg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Rp9agg0ydtjPWCMbWupsCarMyhx8m4ESfxME2ZSk+DA=; b=Wfop9oWTV4YsVJuavaTJFnjwMVnrmCMRr31bLPhoU5KIpWegH4k1iMa1V3lYFpRX0y 6RQ3J0wPOn1oCEMXxl0qbuanP6Dt1Oo4v5Ttbp4GKLir+Zk7xJIIDQczVZ2zkMIfkYW/ nmBcpKXYk4ArkDgXz5zjgOMF73qbpDTxqulJSWCEhws5i+GTMW5WBXYC83XUimGqHE4k Mg9xpeAuLVc8qlr6Vlsd11xFuA+m7WiJa6ntYfM2nNbm2y1kjbMnwIhXbUgMMGLn0ZZp T9CWvjb3+6ou/OHjkX1FKt9XvZTG0VnRo6d5maAVpFHqHlmry2VIzf6ftIXwH/GSvCv9 qjEA== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukdRkMdk0E2twP1uKV35leYGr/xC8BEM8KBxHfpwk7SgPHOQ6hlL zPfr5+xt/ejSV1cFR3mia6aleGdYwXaeAEUw2yU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN7H/Kkl4M9K40LCmH2lNQOAZ0A8ES4R7dCFTm5CRvAMF1270VEsTfh07va/D9EOoPREigJ2on2Z4lDb0NvYDMA= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:5054:: with SMTP id v20-v6mr3139695ljd.45.1547031456970; Wed, 09 Jan 2019 02:57:36 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20171108223020.24487-1-linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> <20181026232409.16100-1-linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> <20181026232409.16100-2-linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> <72ac8661-312c-8df9-358a-22ddb0a81f54@rasmusvillemoes.dk> In-Reply-To: <72ac8661-312c-8df9-358a-22ddb0a81f54@rasmusvillemoes.dk> From: Miguel Ojeda Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 11:57:26 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/7] compiler_attributes.h: add __attribute__((format_arg)) shorthand To: Rasmus Villemoes Cc: Kees Cook , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Rasmus, On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 11:43 AM Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > > On 2018-11-02 11:36, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > > Hi Rasmus, > > > > On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 2:06 PM Miguel Ojeda > > wrote: > >> > >> I did quick check and gcc >= 4.1, clang >= 3.0, icc >= 13 compilers > >> seem to support it (or at least recognize it, even if they just ignore > >> it), so we do not need to make it optional, no? Did I miss some case? > > > > compiler-attributes landed -- do you want to do the v2 of this (i.e. > > #defining it unconditionally) or you prefer I simply fix up the patch? > > I'll wait a few more days for comments on fmtcheck(), and allow you to > do the 'optional'/'required' clarification in the meantime. I hope to > get fmtcheck() picked up for -next around -rc3 or so. Any news about fmtcheck()? The "Optional" clarification landed a few weeks ago, in case you wanted to know. Hopefully it is more clear now. Cheers, Miguel