chill added a comment. In D80791#2206853 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D80791#2206853>, @nsz wrote:
> i think that cannot work. > > the implementation is free to inject arbitrary code into > user code so if the user does not tell the implementation > that it wants the entire tu to be bti safe then non-bti > code can end up in there. (e.g. ctor of an instrumentation > that is not realated to any particular function with the > bti marking) Certainly, there are cases it won't work, but there are definitely cases where it *can* work. Whatever the implementation does should be a deterministic consequence of implementing the relevant language standards together with implementation-defined behaviour, command-line options and language extensions (e..g attributes). Certainly I don't expect C++ ctorts/dtors in C code and gcov or sanitiser calls if I haven't given relevant `-fprofile-whatever`/`-fsanitize=whatever` options. In that sense, the implementation cannot do whatever it pleases, it is constrained to a range of behaviours one can reason about. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D80791/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D80791 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
