On Thu, 17 Nov 2005, Peter S. Mazinger wrote: > On Wed, 16 Nov 2005, Richard Henderson wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 10:32:45PM +0100, Peter S. Mazinger wrote: > > > what happens w/ -fstack-protector-all -fstack-protector (in this order) ? > > > do we have (2) or (1) > > > > We have 1. > > > > > so now it does > > > -fstack-protector #define __SSP__ 1 ; #undef __SSP_ALL__ > > > -fstack-protector-all #define __SSP_ALL__ 2 ; #undef __SSP__ > > > > > > and the last wins. > > > > I don't know what you're looking at, but it isn't mainline. > > The defines are not controled this way. > > The defines are exactly like this (only undef is not done, because the > last wins) > > so -fstack-protector -fstack-protector-all will have only __SSP_ALL__ 2 > -fstack-protector-all -fstack-protector will have only __SSP__ 1 > > so in any case the last wins > > -fstack-protector-all (all protection) being superset of -fstack-protector > (random protection) it should also define __SSP__ 1
or maybe better, remove __SSP_ALL__ and define __SSP__ 2 for -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
