MaskRay added a comment.
The risk conflicting with a GCC option is probably quite low. If there is
something, the GCC option will likely be `-mguard-*=` instead of `-mguard=`
(IMHO confusing).
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Driver/ToolChains/MinGW.cpp:627
+ StringRef GuardArgs = A->getValue();
+ if (GuardArgs.equals_insensitive("none")) {
+ // Do nothing.
----------------
If this is Clang specific, is it necessary to use insensitive option names?
================
Comment at: clang/test/Driver/mingw-cfguard.c:1
+// RUN: %clang -v -target x86_64-w64-windows-gnu -### %s 2>&1 | FileCheck
-check-prefixes=NO_CF,DEFAULT %s
+// RUN: %clang -v -target x86_64-w64-windows-gnu -### %s -mguard=none 2>&1 |
FileCheck -check-prefixes=NO_CF,GUARD_NONE %s
----------------
Use `--target=` for new tests (avoid legacy `-target `).
Omit unneeded `-v`.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Driver/mingw-cfguard.c:3
+// RUN: %clang -v -target x86_64-w64-windows-gnu -### %s -mguard=none 2>&1 |
FileCheck -check-prefixes=NO_CF,GUARD_NONE %s
+// NO_CF: "-cc1"
+// NO_CF-NOT: "-cfguard"
----------------
`{{$}}` is unneeded
```
// NO_CF: "-cc1"
// NO_CF-NOT: "-cfguard"
// NO_CF-NOT: "-cfguard-no-checks"
// NO_CF-NEXT: ld"
// NO_CF-NOT: "--guard-cf"
// DEFAULT-NOT: "--no-guard-cf"
// GUARD_NONE-SAME: "--no-guard-cf"
```
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D132810/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D132810
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
