[clang] [llvm] [SystemZ] Global Stackprotector and associated location section (PR #169317)

[Ulrich Weigand via llvm-commits]

uweigand wrote:

> Could we not use the same approach that the existing `LOAD_STACK_GUARD` uses in order to avoid the canary being spilled? I.e. could we not mark `LOAD_STACK_GUARD_ADDRESS` `isReMaterializable`, and do some further nudging with kill flags to ensure that the value isn't reused?

If that works reliably, I guess I'd be fine with it.  We should have test cases to demonstrate that it is isn't spilled, however.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/169317