On 10/24/2016 10:29 AM, Jiong Wang wrote:
Right. But your change could mask backend problems. Specifically if
their expander for stack_protect_fail did fail and returned NULL_TREE.
That would cause it to silently ignore stack protector failures, which
seems inadvisable.
Is there another way you can re-use the analysis code without
resorting to something like this?
In my case, I only want the canary variable which is
"crtl->stack_protect_guard", then I don't want the current runtime
support which GCC will always generate once crl->stack_protect_guard is
initialized.
Presumably you're using this with the new AArch64 security features.
ISTM we ought to be able to separate access to the guard from the rest
of the runtime bits.
Jeff
