void added inline comments.
================ Comment at: llvm/docs/LangRef.rst:1829 + + If a function with the ``nossp`` attribute calls a callee function that has + a stack protector function attribute, such as ``ssp``, ``sspreq``, or ---------------- Do we care about the opposite situation where a function requiring a stack protector doesn't inline a function with the `nossp` attribute? ================ Comment at: llvm/lib/IR/Attributes.cpp:1901-1902 + // caller was explicitly annotated as nossp. + if (Caller.hasFnAttribute(Attribute::NoStackProtect)) + return; // If upgrading the SSP attribute, clear out the old SSP Attributes first. ---------------- nickdesaulniers wrote: > This should be an anomalous situation due to the added verifier check. Should > I make it an assert instead? If it should never happen, then please make it an assert. ================ Comment at: llvm/lib/IR/Verifier.cpp:1986 + Assert(N < 2, + "nossp, ssp, sspreq, sspstrong fn attrs should be mutually " + "exclusive", ---------------- Could use stronger language here. :-) "nssp, ssp, sspreq, and sspstrong fn attrs are mutually exclusive." ================ Comment at: llvm/lib/IR/Verifier.cpp:1977-1984 + if (Attrs.hasFnAttribute(Attribute::NoStackProtect)) + ++N; + if (Attrs.hasFnAttribute(Attribute::StackProtect)) + ++N; + if (Attrs.hasFnAttribute(Attribute::StackProtectReq)) + ++N; + if (Attrs.hasFnAttribute(Attribute::StackProtectStrong)) ---------------- nickdesaulniers wrote: > I'd love to cast these booleans to `unsigned` and add them, but I find that > all of the `static_casts` don't really make this more concise. Thoughts? I think what you have is fine. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D87956/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D87956 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
