nickdesaulniers added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/CodeGen/stack-protector.c:39
// SAFESTACK-NOSSP: attributes #[[A]] = {{.*}} safestack
-// SAFESTACK-NOSSP-NOT: ssp
+// SAFESTACK-NOSSP-NOT: attribute #[[A]] = {{.*}} ssp
----------------
should be `attributes` plural.
================
Comment at: llvm/include/llvm/Bitcode/LLVMBitCodes.h:610
+ // TODO: reorder
+ ATTR_KIND_NO_STACK_PROTECT = 70,
ATTR_KIND_STACK_PROTECT = 26,
----------------
any comments from reviewers before I go and do a tedious reordering of these
enum values?
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/IR/Attributes.cpp:1901-1902
+ // caller was explicitly annotated as nossp.
+ if (Caller.hasFnAttribute(Attribute::NoStackProtect))
+ return;
// If upgrading the SSP attribute, clear out the old SSP Attributes first.
----------------
This should be an anomalous situation due to the added verifier check. Should I
make it an assert instead?
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Transforms/Utils/InlineFunction.cpp:1687
+ return InlineResult::failure(
+ "non-stack-protected caller would inline stack-protected callee");
+
----------------
Is there a better way to emit an OptimizationRemark? Having this feedback in
`-Rpass=inline` might be nice.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D87956/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D87956
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
