On Mon, 2012-11-19 at 15:29 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > 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.
Do you you have a pointer or a reference that describes why ASAN relies on that? I don't doubt you are correct, but for my own education, I'd like to know the reason. > IMHO far simple for targets like ppc is to define > FRAME_GROWS_DOWNWARD as (flag_stack_protect != 0 || flag_address_sanitizer != > 0). That looks like a better idea than what I was thinking of, so I'll go ahead and add that to our target patch. Thanks! Peter
