On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Jim Wilson wrote: > Peter S. Mazinger wrote: > > -fno-stack-protector-all is not recognised/implemented > > You could just submit this as a bug report into bugzilla. > > > apps built w/ -fstack-protector-all segfault > > You will have to give us more info. Most gcc developers probably don't > have a copy of UClibc, and plus it sounds like you have made gcc changes > that weren't included in your message. So there isn't much we can do
sorry, the used gcc patches are those from http://buildroot.uclibc.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/trunk/buildroot/toolchain/gcc/4.1.0/#dirlist (these are mostly needed due to gcc missing real uClibc support) > here except ask for more details. Try debugging the problem. If you can't really tell what is going on. I can only say, that I am using the stack protector since gcc 3.3.x in conjunction w/ uClibc (the "original" version), and now that I wanted to test it with newer gcc I have modified the guard setup part in uClibc so that it can both use the old (<gcc-4) and the new (>=gcc-4) guard style and fail (I have mimiced here the glibc non-TLS version for __stack_chk_guard). With gcc-3.4.4 it works well (as earlier), but gcc-4 (I have backported even *_chk and the ssp stuff to 4.0.2) fails. I have really hoped that someone here can duplicate it in any environment (because if fno-stack-protector-all does not even exist, then this part of the code wasn't even tested) There are 2 scenarios were it could behave the same: 1. Using newest glibc (2.3.6 is not enough), you need cvs, so it won't use libssp.so 2. Using any glibc in conjunction w/ libssp.so > can identify a specific problem here, and give us details about it, we > can probably help. what kind of details should I provide? Thanks, Peter -- Peter S. Mazinger <ps dot m at gmx dot net> ID: 0xA5F059F2 Key fingerprint = 92A4 31E1 56BC 3D5A 2D08 BB6E C389 975E A5F0 59F2
