On Wed, 16 Nov 2005, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 08:40:11PM +0100, Peter S. Mazinger wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Nov 2005, Richard Henderson wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 09:01:21PM +0100, Peter S. Mazinger wrote:
> > > > I meant exactly this, gcc supports -fno-stack-protector (although gcc
> > > > defaults to no-ssp), so -fno-stack-protector-all should be there too
> > >
> > > Why? What option would it perform?
> >
> > to have the possibility to override an earlier one, as it is done w/ many
> > fno* options. Why should this one not have it's counterpart.
>
> There are three states we can be in:
>
> (0) no stack protection -fno-stack-protector
> (1) heuristic stack protection -fstack-protector
> (2) all stack protection -fstack-protector-all
>
> All of these three states have corresponding switches. You can
> use any of them at any time.
True for default configs. Let's consider though other distros like
ubuntu/adamantix/gentoo that can default to "(2) all stack protection"
but sometimes, due to problems (mainly c++) -all has to be disabled.
-fno-stack-protector would disable all the protection, that is not what
would be needed.
> But what does -fno-stack-protector-all mean? I claim it doesn't
> mean anything at all, and is useless. I claim you either wanted
> -fstack-protector or -fno-stack-protector.
to illustrate how the above is currently done (specs, cc1)
%{!fno-stack-protector:-fstack-protector
%{!fno-stack-protector-all:-fstack-protector-all}}
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
