On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 10:02:23PM +0100, Peter S. Mazinger wrote: > 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.
Use -fstack-protector to return to state (1). r~
