This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: apps built w/ -fstack-protector-all segfault
- From: "Peter S. Mazinger" <ps dot m at gmx dot net>
- To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Cc: James E Wilson <wilson at specifix dot com>, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 08:17:07 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: Re: apps built w/ -fstack-protector-all segfault
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
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
Peter S. Mazinger <ps dot m at gmx dot net> ID: 0xA5F059F2
Key fingerprint = 92A4 31E1 56BC 3D5A 2D08 BB6E C389 975E A5F0 59F2