chill added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/TargetInfo.cpp:5149-5152
+ if (BPI.BranchTargetEnforcement)
+ Fn->addFnAttr("branch-target-enforcement", "true");
+ else
+ Fn->addFnAttr("branch-target-enforcement", "false");
----------------
danielkiss wrote:
> I'm going to rebase the patch. I add there a new attribute here
> "ignore-branch-target-enforcement"
> so then the "branch-target-enforcement"="true"/"false" could be just
> "branch-target-enforcement".
>
>
TBH, that's worse, IMHO.
Ideally, I *think* we'd like *every* LLVM IR function that the backend sees,
regardless of how, why and by whom it is created, to have (or not have)
the three existing PACBTI attributes "sign-return-address",
"sign-return-address-key", and "branch-target-enforcement", so the backend can
generate code accordingly.
The module attributes are LLVM IR metadata, and AFAIK LLVM IR metadata is an
optional extra,
it should not affect correctness.
Indeed, *module* metadata is a somwhat grey area, better not use it if there a
way around it.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D75181/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D75181
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
