release_33 branch patches

[Tom Stellard]

On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 12:00:59PM -0400, Brad Smith wrote:
> Here are some patches I'd like to propose being merged to the 3.3 branch..
> 
> For LLVM..
> 
> r183533 | rafael | 2013-06-07 12:35:57 -0400 (Fri, 07 Jun 2013) | 12 lines
> 
> Support OpenBSD's native frame protection conventions.
> 
> OpenBSD's stack smashing protection differs slightly from other
> platforms:
> 
>   1. The smash handler function is "__stack_smash_handler(const char
>      *funcname)" instead of "__stack_chk_fail(void)".
> 
>   2. There's a hidden "long __guard_local" object that gets linked
>      into each executable and DSO.
> 
> Patch by Matthew Dempsky.
> 

I think this patch will break ABI compatibility, since it adds a new
private member to the StackProtector class, so I don't think we can
merge it as is.  Does this patch only affect OpenBSD?  If so, then my
feeling is that it is OK with the ABI fixes, approval from the code owner,
and a volunteer who is willing to test the 3.3.1 release on OpenBSD.

> 
> r182446 | rafael | 2013-05-21 22:30:47 -0400 (Tue, 21 May 2013) | 4 lines
> 
> Attempt to fix the mingw32 bot.
> 
> This should hopefully fix
> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-x86_64-darwin11-self-mingw32
> 
> 

This one looks OK to me.

> For Clang..
> 
> r183295 | rafael | 2013-06-05 00:28:55 -0400 (Wed, 05 Jun 2013) | 3 lines
> 
> Default to PIE and using stack protection on OpenBSD.
> 
> Patch by Matthew Dempsky.
> 

I think the addition of the new option in Options.td will break the ABI,
also it seems to me like a new feature, so I'm not sure if this should
go in.  It would be good if the code owner or someone else could explain
exactly why this patch is important.

-Tom

> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits