This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

[PATCH Ping] Extend -fstack-protector-strong to cover calls with return slot

From: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, shenhan at google dot com
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 10:05:24 +0100
Subject: [PATCH Ping] Extend -fstack-protector-strong to cover calls with return slot
Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
References: <52C6B807 dot 1070203 at redhat dot com> <20140103185715 dot GO892 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <52C72F05 dot 2060901 at redhat dot com> <52CBF834 dot 3040004 at redhat dot com> <20140107130748 dot GP892 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <52CC00A8 dot 7070203 at redhat dot com> <20140107133723 dot GR892 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <52CD6755 dot 5060003 at redhat dot com> <52D9055F dot 9030403 at redhat dot com>

On 01/17/2014 11:26 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:

On 01/08/2014 03:57 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:

What about the attached version?  It still does not exactly match your
original suggestion because gimple_call_lhs (stmt) can be NULL_TREE if
the result is ignored and this case needs instrumentation, as you
explained, so I use the function return type in the aggregate_value_p
check.

Testing is still under way, but looks good so far.  I'm bootstrapping
with BOOT_CFLAGS="-O2 -g -fstack-protector-strong" with Ada enabled, for
additional coverage.


Testing passed without new regressions.  Is this okay for trunk?


Ping?  Thanks.

--
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security Team

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]