[patch] gcc fstack-protector-explicit

[Jeff Law]

On 07/01/14 15:34, Daniel Gutson wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
>> 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 explicit
>> static protector attribute, then it ought to be protected regardless of any
>> flags.  Is there some reason to require the -fstack-protect-explicit?
>
> They can work separately, since the logic is:
>
> if NOT stack-protect-explicit
>     a function can be protected by the current logic OR it has the attribute
>     (a function may be not automatically protected with the current logic)
> ELSE // stack-protect-explicit
>     only functions marked with the attribute will be protected.
>
> IOW, when no stack-protect-explicit, the functions may not be
> protected due to current logic, so the attribute acts as an override
> to request protection.
Sorry this took so long.  I fixed a variety of whitespace errors, wrote 
a better ChangeLog, re-bootstrapped and regression tested the patch 
(given the long delay, I felt it was the least I could do).  Approved 
and installed.

Sorry for the terribly long delay.

jeff