================
@@ -1484,6 +1484,39 @@ void AddUnalignedAccessWarning(ArgStringList &CmdArgs) {
}
}
+static void handlePAuthABIOption(const ArgList &DriverArgs,
+ ArgStringList &CC1Args, const Driver &D) {
+ if (!DriverArgs.hasArg(options::OPT_fptrauth_intrinsics,
----------------
kovdan01 wrote:
> See addOptInFlag.
Do you mean that we need to replace
```
if (!DriverArgs.hasArg(options::OPT_fptrauth_xxx,
options::OPT_fno_ptrauth_xxx))
CC1Args.push_back("-fptrauth-xxx");
```
with
```
DriverArgs.addOptInFlag(CC1Args, options::OPT_fptrauth_xxx,
options::OPT_fno_ptrauth_xxx);
```
...?
If so, this does not look correct - `addOptInFlag` would add the flag present
(if any) in `DriverArgs` to `CC1Args`, but we want to append a list of ptrauth
flags to cc1 args unconditionally if `pauthabi` is passed as branch protection.
Do I miss smth? I suppose I might have misunderstood you point.
> But the implementation seems quite different from the title/description.
Hmm, it actually looks consistent to me, the implementation seems matching the
description from my point of view - we want to add a bunch of arguments with
`-mbranch-protection=pauthabi` used as a shortcut, we do that. Could you please
describe what is inconsistent between description and implementation in a bit
more detail?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/97237
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
