Add the IR attribute 'sspstrong'.

SSPStrong applies a heuristic to insert stack protectors in these situations:

* A Protector is required for functions which contain an array, regardless of
  type or length.

* A Protector is required for functions which contain a structure/union which
  contains an array, regardless of type or length.  Note, there is no limit to
  the depth of nesting.

* A protector is required when the address of a local variable (i.e., stack
  based variable) is exposed. (E.g., such as through a local whose address is
  taken as part of the RHS of an assignment or a local whose address is taken as
  part of a function argument.)

This patch implements the SSPString attribute to be equivalent to
SSPRequired. This will change in a subsequent patch.


git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@173230 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8

1 files changed, 10 insertions, 2 deletions

diff --git a/docs/LangRef.rst b/docs/LangRef.rst
index 8fd8b3f02b..1a85469550 100644
--- a/docs/LangRef.rst
+++ b/docs/LangRef.rst
@@ -837,8 +837,16 @@ example:
 
     If a function that has an ``sspreq`` attribute is inlined into a
     function that doesn't have an ``sspreq`` attribute or which has an
-    ``ssp`` attribute, then the resulting function will have an
-    ``sspreq`` attribute.
+    ``ssp`` or ``sspstrong`` attribute, then the resulting function will have
+    an ``sspreq`` attribute.
+``sspstrong``
+    This attribute indicates that the function should emit a stack smashing
+    protector. Currently this attribute has the same effect as
+    ``sspreq``. This overrides the ``ssp`` function attribute.
+
+    If a function that has an ``sspstrong`` attribute is inlined into a
+    function that doesn't have an ``sspstrong`` attribute, then the
+    resulting function will have an ``sspstrong`` attribute.
 ``uwtable``
     This attribute indicates that the ABI being targeted requires that
     an unwind table entry be produce for this function even if we can