kovdan01 wrote: @ahmedbougacha
> I should mention that in our world we generally don't expect these to be > common (other than in cc1 invocations), and they're generally used for > overriding default ABI behavior inferred from triples and deployment targets > and whatnot. We also don't expect usage of these options to be common - instead, we propose `-mbranch-protection=pauthabi` option which enables a pre-defined set of ptrauth flags, see #97237. I think that the main rationale for using comma-separated flags instead of a bunch of different flags is that it'll reduce unneeded `-fptrauth-` duplication - such duplication is probably undesirable even in cc1 invocations. > and it should be doable to support the long spellings on top of these. Regarding that: I'm not sure if it's a good idea to support both `-fptrauth-xxx -fptrauth-yyy` and `-fptrauth=xxx,yyy`. It'll result in additional logic for handling conflicts if the same flags are defined in different ways. It's probably not too complex, but it'll make things more messy, and I don't think it's what we are trying to achive. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/96160 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
