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]

Re: [patch] gcc fstack-protector-explicit

From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
To: Marcos Díaz <marcos dot diaz at tallertechnologies dot com>
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 11:25:00 -0600
Subject: Re: [patch] gcc fstack-protector-explicit
Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
References: <CAEOtcjmFhFJ8A4r3nLq_odtFSctT51TOma0douMdBb27uKNnVA at mail dot gmail dot com> <528AFE96 dot 3040301 at redhat dot com> <CAEOtcjkX9yk5DXQbrKqxncpZJ0zvVdHq44jpL+6Bub9mH_t=DA at mail dot gmail dot com> <528D09D9 dot 9020902 at redhat dot com> <CAEOtcj=sXsqMOZw6Kas2iK=e6qRh5u+hmwB=-tmqAoWZL==5Dg at mail dot gmail dot com>

On 03/19/14 08:06, Marcos Díaz wrote:

Well, finally I have the assignment, could you please review this patch?

Thanks.

My first thought was that if we've marked the function with an explicitstatic protector attribute, then it ought to be protected regardless ofany flags. Is there some reason to require the -fstack-protect-explicit?

The patch itself is relatively simple and I don't see anything thatlooks terribly wrong at first glance. I think we just need to make surewe're on the same page WRT needing the -fstack-protect-explicit flag.


jeff

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [patch] gcc fstack-protector-explicit
  - From: Daniel Gutson

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