On Mon, Apr 7, 2025 at 2:53 AM Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: > > On Fri, 4 Apr 2025, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 04, 2025 at 08:52:10PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > Or do you want something further (like > > > > switch (global_options.x_flag_cf_protection & ~CF_SET) > > > > )? > > > > > > Dunno what that CF_SET is, we’re supposed to record options like the user > > > specified so we can merge them. Why does the backend alter this? > > > > The option user specified was -fhardened but that for some reason > > isn't present in gcc.lto_.opts at all. > > Also, it is unclear to me if the options that -fhardened sets > > should be marked also as OPTION_SET_P (as if the user specified > > all those options explicitly when specifying -fhardened explicitly) > > or not. > > CCing Marek on that. > > > > And I admit I have no idea what that CF_SET is. > > Maybe HJ can explain? We do seem to mask it out in most places, > so we probably should for lto-opts as well, also given we have no > way of specifying it. > > Richard.
See: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84248 -- H.J.
