On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 02:37:08PM -0400, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > This function is passed explicit opts and opts_set arguments, so it
> > shouldn't be using flag_something macros nor OPTION_SET_P, as the former
> > use global_options.x_flag_something rather than opts->x_flag_something
> > and the latter uses global_options_set.x_flag_something.
>
> Ah right, so the other uses of OPTION_SET_P in ix86_option_override_internal
> are also wrong?
Most likely yes.
> > So, I think you want to use if (!opts_set->x_flag_cf_protection)
> > instead.
>
> Fixed below, thanks.
>
> New tests passed on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
Ok, thanks.
>
> -- >8 --
> -Whardened warns when -fhardened couldn't enable a hardening option
> because that option was disabled on the command line, e.g.:
>
> $ ./cc1plus -quiet g.C -fhardened -O2 -fstack-protector
> cc1plus: warning: '-fstack-protector-strong' is not enabled by '-fhardened'
> because it was specified on the command line [-Whardened]
>
> but it doesn't work as expected with -fcf-protection=none:
>
> $ ./cc1plus -quiet g.C -fhardened -O2 -fcf-protection=none
>
> because we're checking == CF_NONE which doesn't distinguish between nothing
> and -fcf-protection=none. I should have used opts_set, like below.
>
> PR target/114606
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> * config/i386/i386-options.cc (ix86_option_override_internal): Use
> opts_set rather than checking == CF_NONE.
>
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * gcc.target/i386/fhardened-1.c: New test.
> * gcc.target/i386/fhardened-2.c: New test.
Jakub
