On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, James E Wilson wrote: > On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 22:45, Peter S. Mazinger wrote: > > I have really hoped that someone here can duplicate it in any environment > > In that case, I'd suggest creating a bugzilla bug report. The gcc list > is really more of a self-help list for gcc developers. If you want to > try to debug the problem yourself, we may be able to provide useful > advice. If you want someone else to look at it, then just file a bug
I wanted to only know if there is a configuration/scenario where this really worked. I would do the testing, I lack the needed gdb/other debug knowledge, if you would be so kind to guide me, I would try to get this working. > report. You may also want to report this to the uClibc developers. > They are probably more interested in looking at this than the gcc > developers. gcc-4.1-pre is "future" music, not even glibc's changes went into 2.3.6 to support these features ... > > > (because if fno-stack-protector-all does not even exist, then this part of > > the code wasn't even tested) > > Isn't this the default? I.e. no stack protection at all is what gcc > does by default. So clearly this has been tested. The only thing > missing is that we don't have an override option, so that you can say > -fstack-protector-all -fno-stack-protector-all and get the default > behaviour back. If you meant something else, then you will need to > explain what you meant. I meant exactly this, gcc supports -fno-stack-protector (although gcc defaults to no-ssp), so -fno-stack-protector-all should be there too 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
