Re: How can Autoconf help with the transition to stricter compilation defaults?
On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 7:44 PM Paul Eggert wrote: > On 2022-11-11 07:11, Aaron Ballman wrote: > > Clang doesn't require such a linker (we work with various system > linkers). > > As long as the system linkers continue to work as they have > traditionally worked, we're fine. > > > the frontend perspective, we can't tell the difference between > > "trust me this is safe because it never gets executed" and "this is a > > CVE" > > If some system linker ever attempts to reject links with mismatched > signatures, Autoconf-generated code will need to have a way to shut that > off. I hope Clang maintainers can be cajoled into supporting that, if > the time comes. Perhaps there can be a #pragma, or a compile-time > option, to do that. > There has been discussion of the problems with compile-time options elsewhere in the thread, but the #pragma idea sounds promising, as older compilers can just ignore it. Jason ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct
On 02/29/2016 10:13 AM, Michael Matz via cfe-commits wrote: Also this insistence that all of "trivially copyable" is already quite nicely specified in the C++ ABI is still not really relevant because C++ _is not the only language out there_. I'm not sure how often I have to repeat this until people get it. Other language ABIs can handle language specific calling conventions as appropriate for them. The psABI can only talk about things that are in its domain. Jason ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Re: RFC: Update Intel386, x86-64 and IA MCU psABIs for passing/returning empty struct
On 03/01/2016 11:43 AM, Michael Matz wrote: Hi, On Mon, 29 Feb 2016, Jason Merrill wrote: Also this insistence that all of "trivially copyable" is already quite nicely specified in the C++ ABI is still not really relevant because C++ _is not the only language out there_. I'm not sure how often I have to repeat this until people get it. Other language ABIs can handle language specific calling conventions as appropriate for them. The psABI can only talk about things that are in its domain. Naturally. How far to follow that road, though? Remove the word "class" from the description of empty types again? Why is that in-domain and the notion of trivially copyable isn't? Yes, dropping "class" seems appropriate, especially since the psABI uses that word to refer to register classes. Jason ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
