thesamesam wrote: > > I am on the fence whether a driver option is really needed. It is a very > > shallow layer of extra abstraction that a curious reader has to look > > through. I guess I'll not object to this, if people really want to add it. > > Setting macros that are reserved names is really unappealing for people. We > want to provide a well integrated experience for library hardening and that > includes providing a friendly option at the compiler level. Other sanity > checking in the driver like erroring out when libc++ isn't in use is also > good,
That pre-empts making it work for libstdc++ as suggested above... > since it calls out user mistakes early and clearly (otherwise the user might > think they are getting hardening when they are > not). Finally, in the future > this flag could potentially include more than just the macro. For example, it > could potentially > include a few additional warnings. That'd be the case for `-fhardened`. > > Overall, my opinion is that this flag is required to properly "productize" > library hardening and give it a user-friendly "frontend". That's a fair point - setting a macro with an underscore does feel a bit dirty. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/78763 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
