This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH, RFC] Enable libsanitizer on powerpc{,64}
- From: Peter Bergner <bergner at vnet dot ibm dot com>
- To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 08:49:30 -0600
- Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] Enable libsanitizer on powerpc{,64}
- References: <1353107286.17833.36.camel@otta> <20121119142956.GG2315@tucnak.redhat.com>
On Mon, 2012-11-19 at 15:29 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 05:08:06PM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > One question that I have is that the toplev.c test for port support
> > tests for !FRAME_GROWS_DOWNWARD. The rs6000 port has FRAME_GROWS_DOWNWARD
> > defined as (flag_stack_protect != 0), so ASAN only works when we use
> > -fstack-protector. Is there a technical reason why FRAME_GROWS_DOWNWARD
> > must be false?
>
> It would be way too much work to support FRAME_GROWS_DOWNWARD.
Do you you have a pointer or a reference that describes why ASAN
relies on that? I don't doubt you are correct, but for my own
education, I'd like to know the reason.
> IMHO far simple for targets like ppc is to define
> FRAME_GROWS_DOWNWARD as (flag_stack_protect != 0 || flag_address_sanitizer != 0).
That looks like a better idea than what I was thinking of, so
I'll go ahead and add that to our target patch. Thanks!
Peter