Re: stack-protector guard location

[Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>]

On 08/27/2009 05:12 PM, Roland McGrath wrote:
> I was kind of thinking that "anonymous variable of type volatile pointer to
> nothing" would be how we'd recognize it.  Giving it this name does mean you
> can suddenly make use of it without any new debugger support.

Well, given enough debugger hacking, I suppose that could be
made to work in this instance at the moment.  But it would
probably break when we have need of another anonymous variable
type of thing for some other feature.


> I guess if it's DW_AT_artificial, the name means whatever we say
> it means.  But I don't think we want debuggers to think it's a
> source-visible artifical variable (like "this" in C++ is).

I guess I just assumed that the debugger really wouldn't get
too confused because the variable name isn't likely to overlap
with anything that's currently in use.  I do like the current
patch because your use cases Just Work with the current gdb.

But hey, an opinion from the debugger camp is certainly welcome.


r~