Peter S. Mazinger - 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: "Peter S. Mazinger"
• To: Richard Henderson
• Cc: James E Wilson ,
• Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:53:13 +0100 (CET)
• Subject: Re: apps built w/ -fstack-protector-all segfault

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005, Peter S. Mazinger wrote:

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005, Richard Henderson wrote:

On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 10:32:45PM +0100, Peter S. Mazinger wrote:

what happens w/ -fstack-protector-all -fstack-protector (in this order) ? do we have (2) or (1)

We have 1.

so now it does -fstack-protector #define SSP 1 ; #undef SSP_ALL -fstack-protector-all #define SSP_ALL 2 ; #undef SSP

and the last wins.

I don't know what you're looking at, but it isn't mainline. The defines are not controled this way.

The defines are exactly like this (only undef is not done, because the last wins)

so -fstack-protector -fstack-protector-all will have only SSP_ALL 2 -fstack-protector-all -fstack-protector will have only SSP 1

so in any case the last wins

-fstack-protector-all (all protection) being superset of -fstack-protector (random protection) it should also define SSP 1

or maybe better, remove SSP_ALL and define SSP 2 for -all

Peter

-- Peter S. Mazinger ID: 0xA5F059F2 Key fingerprint = 92A4 31E1 56BC 3D5A 2D08 BB6E C389 975E A5F0 59F2

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