cooperp wrote: > If I'm understanding correctly, if you specify this on a local variable, it > doesn't directly impact how the stack protector is emitted, just the > heuristic for whether we choose to enable the stack protector? i.e. it has no > effect with -fstack-protector-all?
That's right yeah. For the `-fstack-protector-all` case for example i believe that is covered by the code in LLVM which looks for `F->hasFnAttribute(Attribute::StackProtectReq)`, which is done prior to any analysis on individual instructions. This PR and the equivalent LLVM one change that instruction based analysis. > Maybe we should use a different name for this? Using an existing attribute > name is convenient, but the meaning here seems different enough that we > should use something different. (This also makes it easier for users can > easily find relevant documentation.) Maybe stack_protector_ignore or > something like that. Yeah I have no problem with a new name. Also considered something like `no_implicit_stack_protector` perhaps, but maybe `stack_protector_ignore` is better as otherwise folks have to think about what from my suggested name the "implicit" is even tied to. Happy to introduce `stack_protector_ignore` and update this if you think that's the way to go. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/173311 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
