================
@@ -0,0 +1,190 @@
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu -emit-llvm -fsanitize=kcfi
-o - %s | FileCheck %s
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu -emit-llvm -fsanitize=kcfi
-x c++ -o - %s | FileCheck %s --check-prefixes=CHECK,MEMBER
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -triple x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu -emit-llvm -fsanitize=kcfi
-fpatchable-function-entry-offset=3 -o - %s | FileCheck %s
--check-prefixes=CHECK,OFFSET
+
+// Note that the interleving of functions, which normally would be in sequence,
+// is due to the fact that Clang outputs them in a non-sequential order.
+
+#if !__has_feature(kcfi)
----------------
AaronBallman wrote:
> I'm not sure how complex it would be to add checks for this.
I think you'd mostly be updating `ASTContext::mergeFunctionTypes()`; that's
where we check things like calling convention mismatches, noreturn mismatches,
and other type properties of a function.
I think we also need some logic to handle declaration merging for things like:
```
typedef int foo;
typedef int foo __attribute__((kcfi_salt("pepper"))); // Should this be allowed
on a redeclaration?
typedef int foo __attribute__((kcfi_salt("spice"))); // Should be rejected,
right?
```
(around `Sema::MergeTypedefNameDecl())`) and similar for tentative variable
declarations (around `Sema::MergeVarDecl()` probably)
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/141846
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
