[NFC][Driver][CFI] Update boolean expression

[vitalybuka]

Show why we don't need regular CFI runtime, when CFI diag runtime is linked.

[llvmbot]

@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang-driver

@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang

Author: Vitaly Buka (vitalybuka)

Changes

Show why we don't need regular CFI runtime, if CFI diag is linked.

---

Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/135881.diff

1 Files Affected:

• (modified) clang/lib/Driver/SanitizerArgs.cpp (+1-2)

diff --git a/clang/lib/Driver/SanitizerArgs.cpp b/clang/lib/Driver/SanitizerArgs.cpp
index 3c7cd562a14e3..1db9da1b60939 100644
--- a/clang/lib/Driver/SanitizerArgs.cpp
+++ b/clang/lib/Driver/SanitizerArgs.cpp
@@ -371,8 +371,7 @@ bool SanitizerArgs::needsUbsanCXXRt() const {
 }
 
 bool SanitizerArgs::needsCfiRt() const {
-  return !(Sanitizers.Mask & SanitizerKind::CFI & ~TrapSanitizers.Mask) &&
-         CfiCrossDso && !ImplicitCfiRuntime;
+  return !needsCfiDiagRt() && CfiCrossDso && !ImplicitCfiRuntime;
 }
 
 bool SanitizerArgs::needsCfiDiagRt() const {

[Copilot]

Copilot reviewed 1 out of 1 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

Comments suppressed due to low confidence (1)

clang/lib/Driver/SanitizerArgs.cpp:374

• The refactored boolean logic now relies on needsCfiDiagRt() to encapsulate the previous explicit bitmask evaluation. Please confirm that needsCfiDiagRt() accurately represents the same conditions as the original expression to avoid unintended behavior.

return !needsCfiDiagRt() && CfiCrossDso && !ImplicitCfiRuntime;

[fmayer]

nit: Driver

nit2: I don't think this is really reordering.