tamas.petz added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/TargetInfo.cpp:5149-5152
+ if (BPI.BranchTargetEnforcement)
+ Fn->addFnAttr("branch-target-enforcement", "true");
+ else
+ Fn->addFnAttr("branch-target-enforcement", "false");
----------------
chill wrote:
> danielkiss wrote:
> > I'm going to rebase the patch. I add there a new attribute here
> > "ignore-branch-target-enforcement"
> > so then the "branch-target-enforcement"="true"/"false" could be just
> > "branch-target-enforcement".
> >
> >
> TBH, that's worse, IMHO.
>
> Ideally, I *think* we'd like *every* LLVM IR function that the backend sees,
> regardless of how, why and by whom it is created, to have (or not have)
> the three existing PACBTI attributes "sign-return-address",
> "sign-return-address-key", and "branch-target-enforcement", so the backend
> can generate code accordingly.
>
> The module attributes are LLVM IR metadata, and AFAIK LLVM IR metadata is
> an optional extra,
> it should not affect correctness.
> Indeed, *module* metadata is a somwhat grey area, better not use it if there
> a way around it.
>
>
>
Which case are you trying to handle here?
Is this the case, for example, when -mbranch-protection=standard is set but a
function has _attribute _((target("branch-protection=none")))?
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D75181/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D75181
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
