On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 01:38:19PM -0400, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 04, 2025 at 08:56:40PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 04, 2025 at 08:52:10PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > Or do you want something further (like
> > > > switch (global_options.x_flag_cf_protection & ~CF_SET)
> > > > )?
> > >
> > > Dunno what that CF_SET is, we’re supposed to record options like the user
> > > specified so we can merge them. Why does the backend alter this?
> >
> > The option user specified was -fhardened but that for some reason
> > isn't present in gcc.lto_.opts at all.
> > Also, it is unclear to me if the options that -fhardened sets
> > should be marked also as OPTION_SET_P (as if the user specified
> > all those options explicitly when specifying -fhardened explicitly)
> > or not.
> > CCing Marek on that.
>
> I think it doesn't have to be. There's --help=hardened which shows
> what options will be (attempted to be) enabled.
But then we should arrange for lto-opts to record also -fhardened
among the options if it was specified.
Jakub
