On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 09:35:45AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> >Though wonder if for the TARGET_LIBC_PROVIDES_SSP case LINK_SSP_SPEC
> >shouldn't be
> >#define LINK_SSP_SPEC
> >"{fstack-protector|fstack-protector-strong|fstack-protector-explicit|fstack-protector-all:}"
> >and
> >gcc/config/freebsd.h:
On 01/22/15 05:37, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 10:07:14AM +0100, Rainer Orth wrote:
Ok for mainline once that has been done?
Thanks.
Rainer
2015-01-20 Rainer Orth
* gcc.c (LINK_SSP_SPEC): Handle -fstack-protector-explicit.
Ok.
Though wonder if for the TA
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 10:07:14AM +0100, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Ok for mainline once that has been done?
>
> Thanks.
> Rainer
>
>
> 2015-01-20 Rainer Orth
>
> * gcc.c (LINK_SSP_SPEC): Handle -fstack-protector-explicit.
Ok.
Though wonder if for the TARGET_LIBC_PROVIDES_SSP case LI
Jeff Law writes:
> On 07/01/14 15:34, Daniel Gutson wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> On 03/19/14 08:06, Marcos Díaz wrote:
Well, finally I have the assignment, could you please review this patch?
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> My first thought was that if we've ma
On 07/01/14 15:34, Daniel Gutson wrote:
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 03/19/14 08:06, Marcos Díaz wrote:
Well, finally I have the assignment, could you please review this patch?
Thanks.
My first thought was that if we've marked the function with an explicit
static prot
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Marcos Díaz
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 6:34 PM, Daniel Gutson
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> On 03/19/14 08:06, Marcos Díaz wrote:
Well, finally I have the assignment, could you please review this patch?
>>>
>>> Than
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 6:34 PM, Daniel Gutson
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 03/19/14 08:06, Marcos Díaz wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, finally I have the assignment, could you please review this patch?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> My first thought was that if we've marked the functi
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 03/19/14 08:06, Marcos Díaz wrote:
>>
>> Well, finally I have the assignment, could you please review this patch?
>
> Thanks.
>
> My first thought was that if we've marked the function with an explicit
> static protector attribute, then it ought
On 03/19/14 08:06, Marcos Díaz wrote:
Well, finally I have the assignment, could you please review this patch?
Thanks.
My first thought was that if we've marked the function with an explicit
static protector attribute, then it ought to be protected regardless of
any flags. Is there some reas
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 03/19/14 08:06, Marcos Díaz wrote:
>>
>> Well, finally I have the assignment, could you please review this patch?
>
> Thanks. I'll take a look once we open up stage1 development again (should
> be soon as 4.9 is getting close to being ready).
On 03/19/14 08:06, Marcos Díaz wrote:
Well, finally I have the assignment, could you please review this patch?
Thanks. I'll take a look once we open up stage1 development again
(should be soon as 4.9 is getting close to being ready).
jeff
Well, finally I have the assignment, could you please review this patch?
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/19/13 07:04, Marcos Díaz wrote:
>>
>> My employer is working on the signature of the papers. Could someone
>> please do the review meanwhile?
>
> I'd prefer to wait un
On 11/19/13 07:04, Marcos Díaz wrote:
My employer is working on the signature of the papers. Could someone
please do the review meanwhile?
I'd prefer to wait until the assignment process is complete. If
something were to happen and we can't use your code the review time
would have been wasted
My employer is working on the signature of the papers. Could someone
please do the review meanwhile?
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 3:00 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/18/13 13:05, Marcos Díaz wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> the attached patch adds a new attribute and option flag to control
>> when to do stack pro
On 11/18/13 13:05, Marcos Díaz wrote:
Hi,
the attached patch adds a new attribute and option flag to control
when to do stack protection.
The new attribute (stack_protect) affects the behavior of gcc by
forcing the stack protection of the function marked with the attribute
if any of the opti
Hi,
the attached patch adds a new attribute and option flag to control
when to do stack protection.
The new attribute (stack_protect) affects the behavior of gcc by
forcing the stack protection of the function marked with the attribute
if any of the options -fstack-protector, -fstack-protector-
16 matches
Mail list logo
