nsz added a comment. In D80791#2207203 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D80791#2207203>, @chill wrote:
> I would prefer to avoid the situation where the markings of two otherwise > identical files were different, > depending on how the files were produced, no matter if it was a common or a > special case. i don't see why it is desirable to silently get marking on an object file if function definitions happen to be bti compatible in it: - compiler cannot reliably do this (e.g. bti incompatible inline asm). - some users don't want the marking: not all linkers support it so it can cause unexpected breakage. - most users (all?) want the marking reliably (not opportunistically), but function annotations are fragile (can depend on optimizations and code outside of user control). - it is not useful to have a bti annotated function unless everything else is bti compatible too: it is all or nothing per elf module. - but a compiler cannot diagnose if only some functions have the annotation (we don't have a cflag for it) so even if the compiler tried to add the marking silently users cannot rely on it: it's too easy to drop the marking and no way to debug such failure. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D80791/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D80791 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
