thopre added inline comments.
================ Comment at: include/clang/Driver/Options.td:1634-1636 + HelpText<"Uses a stronger heuristic to apply stack protectors to functions " + "that include arrays of any size (and any type), " + "as well as any calls to alloca or the taking of an address from a local variable">; ---------------- I'm not sure what's the policy for related options but I feel the description should stand on its own. I'd therefor start by: "Enable stack protectors for some functions potentially vulnerable to stack smashing. Compared to -fstack-protector, this uses a stronger heuristic (....)" If the policy is to avoid such repeatition then please ignore this comment. ================ Comment at: include/clang/Driver/Options.td:1638 def fstack_protector : Flag<["-"], "fstack-protector">, Group<f_Group>, - HelpText<"Enable stack protectors for functions potentially vulnerable to stack smashing">; + HelpText<"Enable stack protectors for some functions potentially vulnerable to stack smashing. " + "Namely those containing a char (or 8bit integer) array or constant sized calls to " ---------------- Not a native english speaker but I feel that "potentially" is redundant given you said it enables stack protector for *some* functions. Perhaps rewrite it along the lines of: "Enable stack protectors for some of the functions vulnerable to stack smashing based on simple heuristic" with a better word than "simple". This conveys both that not all functions are protected and suggests that a better heuristic is possible. You can then easily refer the reader to -fstack-protector-strong and -fstack-protector-all in a following sentence. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D55428/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D55428 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
