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.
IMHO far simple for targets like ppc is to define
FRAME_GROWS_DOWNWARD as (flag_stack_protect != 0 || flag_address_sanitizer !=
0).
Jakub
