You should also update the patch description. Besides my new comment on warnings (which could be added separately), this patch LGTM.
================ Comment at: docs/SafeStack.rst:109 @@ +108,3 @@ +This builtin function returns a pointer to the start of the unsafe stack of the +current thread. + ---------------- pcc wrote: > jfb wrote: > > What happens when calling ``__builtin_frame_address`` with SafeStack? > I believe it will return a pointer to the safe stack. I've added some stuff > to the Limitations section about this. Would it be possible to have clang warn when doing safe-stack and `__builtin_frame_address` is used, or the stack leaks in other inadvertent ways? We want to avoid noisy warnings, but converting an existing codebase should probably require explicitly adding no-safe-stack attributes where required. http://reviews.llvm.org/D6095 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
