================
@@ -5736,6 +5736,17 @@ option.
}];
}
+def StackProtectorIgnoreDocs : Documentation {
+ let Category = DocCatFunction;
+ let Content = [{
+The ``stack_protector_ignore`` attribute skips analysis of the given local
+variable when determining if a function should use a stack protector.
+
+If ``-fstack-protector-all`` is specified then the given function will still
+use a stack protector, even if some/all variables have this attribute.
----------------
cooperp wrote:
I was looking to check for `-fstack-protector-all` in `CGDecl.cpp` where i've
made the changes in this PR. Then at that point emit a warning too if the new
ignore attribute is present.
Unfortunately running in to an ordering issue. The stack protector flags are
checked in `CodeGenModule::SetLLVMFunctionAttributesForDefinition()` but that
is after i'm emitting the attribute in `CodeGenFunction::EmitAutoVarAlloca()`.
I could potentially factor out the stack protector logic in to a helper, eg:
clang::LangOptions::StackProtectorMode
CodeGenModule::StackProtectorMode(const Decl *D) const;
then call that helper from `SetLLVMFunctionAttributesForDefinition()` to handle
the current logic of attaching attributes, but also call it from
`EmitAutoVarAlloca()` to see if we should emit this new suggested warning.
Alternatively, if this is totally the wrong direction just let me know
@AaronBallman. I don't know if this is the kind of thing that something like
Sema should handle instead as i'm more familiar with codegen and IR than the
rest of clang.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/173311
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
