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: apps built w/ -fstack-protector-all segfault


On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 08:40:11PM +0100, Peter S. Mazinger wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Nov 2005, Richard Henderson wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 09:01:21PM +0100, Peter S. Mazinger wrote:
> > > I meant exactly this, gcc supports -fno-stack-protector (although gcc 
> > > defaults to no-ssp), so -fno-stack-protector-all should be there too
> > 
> > Why?  What option would it perform?
> 
> to have the possibility to override an earlier one, as it is done w/ many 
> fno* options. Why should this one not have it's counterpart.

There are three states we can be in:

  (0) no stack protection		-fno-stack-protector
  (1) heuristic stack protection	-fstack-protector
  (2) all stack protection		-fstack-protector-all

All of these three states have corresponding switches.  You can
use any of them at any time.

But what does -fno-stack-protector-all mean?  I claim it doesn't
mean anything at all, and is useless.  I claim you either wanted
-fstack-protector or -fno-stack-protector.


r~


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