[PATCH] D59780: Support Intel Control-flow Enforcement Technology

Mon Oct 21 00:39:11 PDT 2019

annita.zhang added a comment.

In D59780#1710631 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D59780#1710631>, @MaskRay wrote:

> In the Cauldron, GCC/LLVM Collaboration BoF was a topic. The PLT scheme argument reflects a bigger problem that some collaboration does not work well. I will give an example about the latest binutils 2.33.1 release. I caught the objcopy --set-section-alignment problem in the last minute (https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2019-10/msg00008.html). I would regret if the problematic objcopy patch slipped through and GNU developers were reluctant to change it - which would mean llvm-objcopy would not have an ideal solution. Recently in another case, I caught a problem related to .ctf but I guess GNU maintainers will not care <https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2019-10/msg00062.html> my opinion. I'll stop as it may be too off-topic now.
>
> For my own notes, I should follow binutils, libc-alpha, and x86-64-abi discussions more closely.
>
> I accepted this patch. I am still sad about the .plt.sec scheme but am not opposed to this patch. It is up to @ruiu to rebase the patch and commit it.

@MaskRay, I totally agree with you that LLVM and GCC community should work more closely on those ABI standards. For example, we are facing some LLVM ABI noncompliant issues especially in legacy ia32. And they're hard to fix. We need to involve both LLVM and GCC into discussion for future ABI changes. So both can be ABI compliant once it's finalized.

@ruiu, what's your decision then?

Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D59780/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D59780