Richard Henderson - Re: apps built w (original) (raw)

This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.orgmailing list for the GCC project.

Re: apps built w/ -fstack-protector-all segfault

• From: Richard Henderson
• To: "Peter S. Mazinger"
• Cc: James E Wilson , gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
• Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 12:20:33 -0800
• Subject: Re: apps built w/ -fstack-protector-all segfault
• References: <20051116190725.GA16133@redhat.com> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0511162037350.4746-100000@lnx.bridge.intra>

On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 08:40:11PM +0100, Peter S. Mazinger wrote:

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005, Richard Henderson wrote:

On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 09:01:21PM +0100, Peter S. Mazinger wrote:

I meant exactly this, gcc supports -fno-stack-protector (although gcc defaults to no-ssp), so -fno-stack-protector-all should be there too

Why? What option would it perform?

to have the possibility to override an earlier one, as it is done w/ many fno* options. Why should this one not have it's counterpart.

There are three states we can be in:

(0) no stack protection -fno-stack-protector (1) heuristic stack protection -fstack-protector (2) all stack protection -fstack-protector-all

All of these three states have corresponding switches. You can use any of them at any time.

But what does -fno-stack-protector-all mean? I claim it doesn't mean anything at all, and is useless. I claim you either wanted -fstack-protector or -fno-stack-protector.

r~

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: apps built w/ -fstack-protector-all segfault
    * From: Peter S. Mazinger
• References:
  • Re: apps built w/ -fstack-protector-all segfault
    * From: Richard Henderson
  • Re: apps built w/ -fstack-protector-all segfault
    * From: Peter S. Mazinger