AaronBallman wrote: > > Was there an RFC for this? > > LFI is a (nascent) backend tech; technically a subtly-different ABI from > something like aarch64-linux-gnu. > > https://llvm.org/docs/LFI.html > > TL;DR it rewrites loads/stores/syscalls to create a "faster sandbox." > > This PR adds controls to whether we skip sanitizing loads or stores > individually. > > > does GCC support this under this spelling > > GCC does not support LFI at all (yet). > > > is an -m flag the right design > > I think so as most `-m` flags have implications on the ABI, but am open to > suggestions.
Thanks for the background info! Are there going to be a lot of options? e.g., should we be worried about proliferation if we go with `-mlfi-stores` as the pattern instead? Adding the options maintainers for their awareness. (I don't have strong opinions on the design here, just trying to make sure there's enough community awareness of the changes.) https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/204689 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
