[libcxx-commits] [PATCH] D158823: [libc++][hardening] Add back the safe mode.

Mon Aug 28 10:02:54 PDT 2023

Mordante added inline comments.

================
Comment at: libcxx/utils/libcxx/test/params.py:301-303
                 AddCompileFlag("-D_LIBCPP_ENABLE_HARDENED_MODE=1") if hardening_mode == "hardened" else None,
+                AddCompileFlag("-D_LIBCPP_ENABLE_SAFE_MODE=1")     if hardening_mode == "safe" else None,
                 AddCompileFlag("-D_LIBCPP_ENABLE_DEBUG_MODE=1")    if hardening_mode == "debug" else None,
----------------
Mordante wrote:
> ldionne wrote:
> > Mordante wrote:
> > > I start to feel slightly uncomfortable with these names. To me they are not very descriptive and they are now 4 options. I don't directly have better suggestions, but I think we should spend a bit of time on this.
> > > 
> > > For example, which is more expensive "safe" or "hardened"?
> > I agree, this is definitely not perfect. This is user facing too, so we need to find something good.
> > 
> > We thought that `safe` was good given that it is the name we used for this mode historically (in LLVM 15 and LLVM 16). We also thought that it was "reasonably" clear that it was more expensive than `hardened`, but maybe it isn't. I'll CC you on the comment above that discusses naming.
> Thanks. As said I don't have a better suggestion either.
> I agree, this is definitely not perfect. This is user facing too, so we need to find something good.
> 
> We thought that `safe` was good given that it is the name we used for this mode historically (in LLVM 15 and LLVM 16). We also thought that it was "reasonably" clear that it was more expensive than `hardened`, but maybe it isn't. I'll CC you on the comment above that discusses naming.

Based on this information and Discord I think we should go with safe. I still think it's not great, but it's consistent with what we did in the past.

Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D158823/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D158823