serge-sans-paille added a comment. In D71082#1958597 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71082#1958597>, @manojgupta wrote:
> Yes, it'd be nice if all of the FORTIFY handling can be improved. For a > simple call like memcpy of 8 bytes in the example, there is no reason to emit > all these stack/range checks since they'd degrade memcpy performance. > > I still think this change should be reverted if it can't handle Linux > kernel's FORTIFY implementation. I think there's a misunderstanding there. This patch has nothing to do with clang being unable to correctly handle the kernel's memcpy implementation. The only thing it does is actually *picking* the kernel's memcpy implementation instead of relying on the builtin, non-fortified, version of it. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D71082/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D71082 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
