rsmith added inline comments.
================
Comment at: include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticFrontendKinds.td:229
+def remark_ssp_applied_reason
+ : Remark<"SSP applied to function due to %select{an unknown reason|a "
+ "call to alloca|a stack allocated buffer or struct containing a "
----------------
Can this "unknown reason" case actually happen? It seems like a bug that SSP
insertion would not know why it's doing what it's doing.
================
Comment at: include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticFrontendKinds.td:229
+def remark_ssp_applied_reason
+ : Remark<"SSP applied to function due to %select{an unknown reason|a "
+ "call to alloca|a stack allocated buffer or struct containing a "
----------------
rsmith wrote:
> Can this "unknown reason" case actually happen? It seems like a bug that SSP
> insertion would not know why it's doing what it's doing.
Rather than the potentially-opaque initialism SSP, could you say "stack
protector" here? That would match the flag name better.
================
Comment at: include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticFrontendKinds.td:230
+ : Remark<"SSP applied to function due to %select{an unknown reason|a "
+ "call to alloca|a stack allocated buffer or struct containing a "
+ "buffer|the address of a local variable being taken|a function "
----------------
Do we actually know that the cause is a call to `alloca` rather than a VLA?
================
Comment at: include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticFrontendKinds.td:232
+ "buffer|the address of a local variable being taken|a function "
+ "attribute or use of -fstack-protector-all}0">,
+ InGroup<SSPReason>;
----------------
These two cases seem very easy to tell apart: if `-fstack-protector-all` is
specified, use that diagnostic, otherwise the LLVM attribute must have been
from a source-level attribute.
================
Comment at: include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticGroups.td:911
+// function.
+def SSPReason : DiagGroup<"ssp-reason">;
----------------
The flags to control this are `-fstack-protector*`, so `-Rstack-protector` (or
something starting `-Rstack-protector`) should be used here.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D29027
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
