This is the mail archive of the gcc@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]

Re: Do we want to add -fsanitize=function?


On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 01:57:47PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
> > seems to be what they emit on x86_64.  Now, wonder what they do on other
> > targets
> 
> Other targets are not supported :P
> 
> > , and how does it play with all the other options that add stuff
> > to the start of functions, e.g. -fcf-protection=full (where it needs to
> > really start with endbr64 instruction)
> 
> Using the options one will get:
> 
> _Z4savev:                               # @_Z4savev
> 	.cfi_startproc
> 	.long	846595819               # 0x327606eb
> 	.long	.L__unnamed_2-_Z4savev
> # %bb.0:
> 	endbr64
> 
> So endbr64 is placed after the RTTI record.

Which is wrong, this will then fail on CET hardware.

	Jakub


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