Commit 02a62b55 authored by Thomas Weißschuh's avatar Thomas Weißschuh

tools/nolibc: compiler: introduce __nolibc_has_attribute()

Recent compilers support __has_attribute() to check if a certain
compiler attribute is supported.
Unfortunately we have to first check if __has_attribute is supported in
the first place and then if a specific attribute is present.
These two checks can't be folded into a single condition as that would
lead to errors.

Nesting the two conditions like below works, but becomes ugly as soon
as #else blocks are used as those need to be duplicated for both levels
of #if.

    #if defined __has_attribute
    #  if __has_attribute (nonnull)
    #    define ATTR_NONNULL __attribute__ ((nonnull))
    #  endif
    #endif

Introduce a new helper which makes the usage of __has_attribute() nicer
and migrate the current user to it.
Acked-by: default avatarWilly Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240807-nolibc-llvm-v2-4-c20f2f5fc7c2@weissschuh.netSigned-off-by: default avatarThomas Weißschuh <linux@weissschuh.net>
parent 1daea158
......@@ -6,20 +6,22 @@
#ifndef _NOLIBC_COMPILER_H
#define _NOLIBC_COMPILER_H
#if defined(__has_attribute)
# define __nolibc_has_attribute(attr) __has_attribute(attr)
#else
# define __nolibc_has_attribute(attr) 0
#endif
#if defined(__SSP__) || defined(__SSP_STRONG__) || defined(__SSP_ALL__) || defined(__SSP_EXPLICIT__)
#define _NOLIBC_STACKPROTECTOR
#endif /* defined(__SSP__) ... */
#if defined(__has_attribute)
# if __has_attribute(no_stack_protector)
# define __no_stack_protector __attribute__((no_stack_protector))
# else
# define __no_stack_protector __attribute__((__optimize__("-fno-stack-protector")))
# endif
#if __nolibc_has_attribute(no_stack_protector)
# define __no_stack_protector __attribute__((no_stack_protector))
#else
# define __no_stack_protector __attribute__((__optimize__("-fno-stack-protector")))
#endif /* defined(__has_attribute) */
#endif /* __nolibc_has_attribute(no_stack_protector) */
#endif /* _NOLIBC_COMPILER_H */
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment