oren_ben_simhon added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D40478#962348, @craig.topper wrote:
> Are we sure we want a different command line option name from gcc? From our > internal conversations with the gcc folks I thought they were suggesting that > -fcf-protection could imply a software mechanism if a hardware mechanism was > not available thorugh -mibt or -march? > > Should we emit an error to the user if -mibt isn't available? We should be > able to add virtual methods on TargetInfo that X86 can customize to check for > ibt and shstk. > > Can you provide more information about the miscompile on MSVC? I think we > should do more to understand that, this sounds like it could be a time bomb > waiting to fail somewhere else. LLVM already has a flag for SW mechanisms "-sanitize=*". Anyway I believe that GCC and LLVM should agree first before i change it. I restored cf-protection and will create a new patch review after an agreement with GCC will be made. I added an error message. I currently don't have more information. After seeing the issue I workaround it. I prefer not to open MSVC miscompilation issue in this code review and investigate it on a different thread. Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D40478 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
