On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 6:34 PM, Daniel Gutson <daniel.gut...@tallertechnologies.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Jeff Law <l...@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. > If there isn't any stack-protect flag (strong, common or explicit) the attribute has no effect > 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. > >> >> The patch itself is relatively simple and I don't see anything that looks >> terribly wrong at first glance. I think we just need to make sure we're on >> the same page WRT needing the -fstack-protect-explicit flag. >> >> jeff >> >> > > > > -- > > Daniel F. Gutson > Chief Engineering Officer, SPD > > > San Lorenzo 47, 3rd Floor, Office 5 > > Córdoba, Argentina > > > Phone: +54 351 4217888 / +54 351 4218211 > > Skype: dgutson
-- ______________________________ Marcos Díaz Software Engineer San Lorenzo 47, 3rd Floor, Office 5 Córdoba, Argentina Phone: +54 351 4217888 / +54 351 4218211/ +54 351 7617452 Skype: markdiaz22
