hans added a comment.
I see in the PR that matches a MinGW flag, but I'm curious to the motivation
here. In what scenario would the user want to use this, i.e. how do they know
it's safe to drop the probes?
================
Comment at: lib/CodeGen/TargetInfo.cpp:2358
-static void addStackProbeSizeTargetAttribute(const Decl *D,
- llvm::GlobalValue *GV,
- CodeGen::CodeGenModule &CGM) {
+static void addStackProbeParamsTargetAttribute(const Decl *D,
+ llvm::GlobalValue *GV,
----------------
I'd suggest perhaps "addStackProbeTargetAttributes" as a name instead, since
I'm not sure what Params is for.
================
Comment at: lib/CodeGen/TargetInfo.cpp:2361
+ CodeGen::CodeGenModule &CGM) {
if (D && isa<FunctionDecl>(D)) {
+ llvm::Function *Fn = cast<llvm::Function>(GV);
----------------
This could be written as
```
if (llvm::Function *Fn = dyn_cast_or_null<llvm::Function>(GV)) {
```
================
Comment at: lib/Driver/ToolChains/Clang.cpp:4038
+ if (Args.hasArg(options::OPT_mno_stack_arg_probe))
+ CmdArgs.push_back("-mno-stack-arg-probe");
+
----------------
I think you can just do
```
Args.AddLastArg(CmdArgs, options::OPT_mno_stack_arg_probe)
```
which avoids the if-statement and having to spell out the flag.
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D43108
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
