================ Comment at: docs/ControlFlowIntegrity.rst:20 @@ +19,3 @@ +program's control flow. These schemes have been optimized for performance, +allowing developers to enable them in release builds. + ---------------- jfb wrote: > jfb wrote: > > Is there a reference number we can quote, or a benchmark that users can run > > to check what the overheads are? > Also, a warning on binary size bloat should be here. Done.
================ Comment at: docs/ControlFlowIntegrity.rst:48 @@ +47,3 @@ +exempted from checking, and therefore programs may be linked against a +regular standard library, but this may change in the future. + ---------------- jfb wrote: > s/regular/pre-built/ or something along those lines. > > That makes me wonder: for PNaCl we could have a version of libc++.a that also > has CFI. Could the exclusion list be done through module metadata merging? > i.e. doing LTO on a module without CFI lists its classes and adds exclusions > for them, and modules with CFI "just work"? > > I wouldn't do this in the current patch. > s/regular/pre-built/ or something along those lines. Done. > That makes me wonder: for PNaCl we could have a version of libc++.a that also > has CFI. Could the exclusion list be done through module metadata merging? > i.e. doing LTO on a module without CFI lists its classes and adds exclusions > for them, and modules with CFI "just work"? Possibly, but if the overhead is low enough it may be simplest to turn it on for everything. ================ Comment at: docs/ControlFlowIntegrity.rst:63 @@ +62,2 @@ +Caroline Tice, Tom Roeder, Peter Collingbourne, Stephen Checkoway, +Ulfar Erlingsson, Luis Lozano, Geoff Pike. ---------------- jfb wrote: > Úlfar, here and above? Done. http://reviews.llvm.org/D7424 EMAIL PREFERENCES http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/ _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
