On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 04:11:44AM +0800, Xi Ruoyao wrote:
> On Fri, 2023-06-30 at 04:08 +0800, Xi Ruoyao wrote:
> > On Thu, 2023-06-29 at 16:01 -0400, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > > These tests fail when the testsuite is executed with -fstack-
> > > protector-strong.
> > > To avoid thi
On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 04:11:44AM +0800, Xi Ruoyao via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Fri, 2023-06-30 at 04:08 +0800, Xi Ruoyao wrote:
> > On Thu, 2023-06-29 at 16:01 -0400, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > > These tests fail when the testsuite is executed with -fstack-
> > > protector-strong.
>
On Fri, 2023-06-30 at 04:08 +0800, Xi Ruoyao wrote:
> On Thu, 2023-06-29 at 16:01 -0400, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > These tests fail when the testsuite is executed with -fstack-
> > protector-strong.
> > To avoid this, this patch adds -fno-stack-protector to dg-options.
> >
> > Teste
On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 04:01:20PM -0400, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> These tests fail when the testsuite is executed with -fstack-protector-strong.
> To avoid this, this patch adds -fno-stack-protector to dg-options.
>
> Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
>
> gcc/testsuite/C
On Thu, 2023-06-29 at 16:01 -0400, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> These tests fail when the testsuite is executed with -fstack-
> protector-strong.
> To avoid this, this patch adds -fno-stack-protector to dg-options.
>
> Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?
LGTM, we've noticed the
