================
@@ -209,9 +209,28 @@ llvm::Value *TargetCodeGenInfo::createEnqueuedBlockKernel(
void TargetCodeGenInfo::setBranchProtectionFnAttributes(
const TargetInfo::BranchProtectionInfo &BPI, llvm::Function &F) {
- llvm::AttrBuilder FuncAttrs(F.getContext());
- setBranchProtectionFnAttributes(BPI, FuncAttrs);
- F.addFnAttrs(FuncAttrs);
+ if (BPI.SignReturnAddr != LangOptions::SignReturnAddressScopeKind::None) {
+ F.addFnAttr("sign-return-address", BPI.getSignReturnAddrStr());
+ F.addFnAttr("sign-return-address-key", BPI.getSignKeyStr());
+ } else {
+ if (F.hasFnAttribute("sign-return-address"))
+ F.removeFnAttr("sign-return-address");
+ if (F.hasFnAttribute("sign-return-address-key"))
+ F.removeFnAttr("sign-return-address-key");
+ }
+
+ auto AddRemoveAttributeAsSet = [&](bool Set, const StringRef &ModAttr) {
+ if (Set)
+ F.addFnAttr(ModAttr);
+ else if (F.hasFnAttribute(ModAttr))
+ F.removeFnAttr(ModAttr);
+ };
+
+ AddRemoveAttributeAsSet(BPI.BranchTargetEnforcement,
+ "branch-target-enforcement");
+ AddRemoveAttributeAsSet(BPI.BranchProtectionPAuthLR,
+ "branch-protection-pauth-lr");
+ AddRemoveAttributeAsSet(BPI.GuardedControlStack, "guarded-control-stack");
}
void TargetCodeGenInfo::setBranchProtectionFnAttributes(
----------------
stuij wrote:
I can see that this AttrBuilder version of the fn is still used in
`getTrivialDefaultFunctionAttributes` in `CGCall.cpp`. I guess in practice the
outcome would still be the same for this use case between old and new
implementation, but even if I didn't miss something it does feel a bit icky to
do so.
Perhaps add a comment to explain the code duplication?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/101978
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
