================
@@ -133,11 +140,17 @@ Error
PointerAuthCFIAnalyzer::runOnFunctions(BinaryContext &BC) {
ParallelUtilities::runOnEachFunction(
BC, ParallelUtilities::SchedulingPolicy::SP_INST_LINEAR, WorkFun,
SkipPredicate, "PointerAuthCFIAnalyzer");
+
+ float IgnoredPercent = (100.0 * FunctionsIgnored) / Total;
BC.outs() << "BOLT-INFO: PointerAuthCFIAnalyzer ran on " << Total
<< " functions. Ignored " << FunctionsIgnored << " functions "
- << format("(%.2lf%%)", (100.0 * FunctionsIgnored) / Total)
+ << format("(%.2lf%%)", IgnoredPercent)
<< " because of CFI inconsistencies\n";
+ if (IgnoredPercent >= 10.0)
+ BC.outs() << "BOLT-WARNING: PointerAuthCFIAnalyzer only supports "
+ "asynchronous unwind tables.\n";
----------------
peterwaller-arm wrote:
I think these are valid concerns. It could still be more actionable to the user
without specifying the flag; calling out that the workload must be recompiled
with them turned on. It could say something like "For C compilers the flag is
typically spelled -fasynchronous-unwind-tables /
-fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables". Even if a user is not using C this might turn
out to be useful information to find relevant documentation.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/165227
_______________________________________________
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
