I think it really ought to be controlled by a -mno-stack-protector-tls or
suchlike, for complete flexibility. Obviously it should default to
disabled for -ffreestanding. Those are GCC quality issues. AFAIK, it does
configure checks on the installed libc for linux configs to decide the ssp
stuff.
Hello!
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 04:15:08PM +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Using `-fstack-protector' with GCC 4.1 made it include assembler code
> using ``%gs:0x14'' even with `-ffreestanding'. However, this isn't the
> correct thing to do on a) GNU/Hurd user space and neither b) in kernel
> space
Neill Miller, le Tue 14 Nov 2006 11:29:32 -0600, a écrit :
> One more time, this time adding the -ffreestanding option after the
> -fstack-protector option:
>
> movl%gs:20, %eax
So gcc is still buggy.
Samuel
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 11:08:02 -0600
Neill Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One more time, this time adding the -ffreestanding option after the
-fstack-protector option:
> > $ echo 'void f (void) { volatile char a[8]; a[3]; }' | gcc -S -x c -O2
> > -fstack-protector - -o -; uname -a; /lib/libc-*
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 17:57:50 +0100
Thomas Schwinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Oops, that was on PPC. Let me try this again ;-)
Note that while it's an AMD 64 chip, it's running in full 32-bit mode with no
64 bit anything. Hope that helps.
> #v+
> $ echo 'void f (void) { volatile char a[8]; a[
Neill Miller, le Tue 14 Nov 2006 11:08:02 -0600, a écrit :
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $ echo 'void f (void) { volatile char a[8]; a[3]; }' |
> gcc -S -x c -O2 -fstack-protector - -o -; uname -a; /lib/libc-*.so
> lwz 0,-28680(2)
That's the TLS STACK_CHK_GUARD instruction. Could you retry with
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 17:57:50 +0100
Thomas Schwinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
Hope this helps!
> ... because this is a Debian testing system and they're still using a
> 2.3-based glibc. That's probably it. If someone has easy access to a
> system with a really recent GCC 4.1 or GCC 4.2
Hello!
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 04:26:26PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Thomas Schwinge, le Tue 14 Nov 2006 16:15:08 +0100, a ?crit :
> > Using `-fstack-protector' with GCC 4.1 made it include assembler code
> > using ``%gs:0x14'' even with `-ffreestanding'. However, this isn't the
> > correct
Hello!
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 05:38:21PM +0100, I wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 04:26:26PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Thomas Schwinge, le Tue 14 Nov 2006 16:15:08 +0100, a ?crit :
> > > Using `-fstack-protector' with GCC 4.1 made it include assembler code
> > > using ``%gs:0x14'' even w
Thomas Schwinge, le Tue 14 Nov 2006 16:15:08 +0100, a écrit :
> Using `-fstack-protector' with GCC 4.1 made it include assembler code
> using ``%gs:0x14'' even with `-ffreestanding'. However, this isn't the
> correct thing to do in kernel
> space (with `-ffreestanding'). I think I've now tracked
[Also sent to Roland and to bug-hurd.]
Hello!
Using `-fstack-protector' with GCC 4.1 made it include assembler code
using ``%gs:0x14'' even with `-ffreestanding'. However, this isn't the
correct thing to do on a) GNU/Hurd user space and neither b) in kernel
space (with `-ffreestanding'). I thi
11 matches
Mail list logo
