> maybe we should at least not document it?
I'd rather document it than have some undocumented attribute in use somewhere.
I'll take a shot at implementing no_sanitize tomorrow and hopefully make this a
moot point.
================
Comment at: lib/CodeGen/CodeGenModule.cpp:765
@@ -763,1 +764,3 @@
+ !D->hasAttr<NoSafeStackAttr>())
+ B.addAttribute(llvm::Attribute::SafeStack);
}
----------------
samsonov wrote:
> Do you also need to add it to
> `CodeGenModule::CreateGlobalInitOrDestructFunction`?
Yes, done.
================
Comment at: lib/Driver/Tools.cpp:2354
@@ +2353,3 @@
+ if (SanArgs.needsSafeStackRt()) {
+ if (Args.hasArg(options::OPT_shared)) {
+ // This is a temporary limitation caused by linking issues.
----------------
samsonov wrote:
> This code is now dead - presence of `-shared` is checked at the top of this
> function. Can we silently discard `-fsanitize=safe-stack` while linking DSO?
We can, but only if the DSO is linked against a main executable that is linked
against the safe stack runtime. (Generally for the other sanitizers we can make
this true, but in deployment scenarios you might not be able to control the
main executable.)
There are a number of possible solutions to this problem, which we plan to deal
with in a future change, but at least removing the check makes things work in
that specific scenario. So I've removed it.
================
Comment at: lib/Driver/Tools.cpp:6251
@@ +6250,3 @@
+ getMachOToolChain().AddLinkRuntimeLib(Args, CmdArgs,
+ "libclang_rt.safestack_osx.a");
+
----------------
samsonov wrote:
> Looks like you should set `AlwaysLink` argument of `AddLinkRuntimeLib` to
> `true`.
Done
http://reviews.llvm.org/D6095
EMAIL PREFERENCES
http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
