This is the mail archive of the 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]

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 
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


Peter S. Mazinger <ps dot m at gmx dot net>           ID: 0xA5F059F2
Key fingerprint = 92A4 31E1 56BC 3D5A 2D08  BB6E C389 975E A5F0 59F2

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