paulkirth added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Driver/SanitizerArgs.cpp:307
+bool shadowCallStackDSLConflicts(const llvm::opt::ArgList &Args,
+ const llvm::Triple &TT) {
----------------
mcgrathr wrote:
> I'm guessing that "DSL" stands for "data small limit" or something, which is
> confusing since the thing is called small-data-limit, not data-small-limit.
> Anyway, this is the first use I've seen of DSL as an abbreviation related to
> any of this. I think it would be clear enough to just call it
> `shadowCallStackConflicts` since it's responsible for detecting conflicts
> between shadow-call-stack and whatever is relevant to that in the particular
> target.
>
Oops. Seems to be a typo. Thank you.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Driver/SanitizerArgs.cpp:573
+ Kinds & SanitizerKind::ShadowCallStack)
+ << "-msmall-data-limit=0";
+ }
----------------
jrtc27 wrote:
> Why is this an error? It may be a misguided thing to enable but it is 100%
> supported to combine this. All the limit does is put things in .sdata, but
> they can still be addressed just fine.
My understanding is that (whether they should or not) linkers are using the
presence of the `.sdata` section to enable gp relaxation.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D146463/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D146463
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
