sconstab added inline comments.
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Target/X86/X86LoadValueInjectionLoadHardening.cpp:233
+ if (!STI->useLVILoadHardening() || !STI->is64Bit())
+ return false; // FIXME: support 32-bit
+
----------------
craig.topper wrote:
> sconstab wrote:
> > mattdr wrote:
> > > If the user requests hardening and we can't do it, it seems better to
> > > fail loudly so they don't accidentally deploy an unmitigated binary.
> > @craig.topper I think this is related to the discussion we were having
> > about what would happen for SLH on unsupported subtargets. I'm not sure
> > what the most appropriate solution would be.
> Added a fatal error. Which isn't great as it will generate a crash report in
> clang. But it will tell the user to file a compiler bug so I guess that's
> something.
Would it be better to have
```
report_fatal_error("LVI load hardening is only supported on 64-bit "
"targets.", false);
```
So that the crash diagnostic is not generated?
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D75936/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D75936
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
