| 1 |
On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 00:41 +0000, Roy Marples wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wednesday 01 March 2006 17:41, solar wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Wed, 2006-03-01 at 17:17 +0000, Duncan Coutts wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > I presume it's a gentoo patch to gcc-4 to add back in |
| 5 |
> > > -fno-stack-protector? |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > For the 4.0.x it should be just a dummy call. |
| 8 |
> > For 4.1 it is included. What does change and is really uncool with 4.1 |
| 9 |
> > is that -fno-stack-protector-all is missing and wont be added |
| 10 |
> > back without several somebodies making a case for it upstream. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> For the non technically minded folks whats the difference between |
| 14 |
> -fno-stack-protector and -fno-stack-protector-all? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
It was explained to me like this: |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
-fno-stack-protector makes gcc use a heuristic to decide whether or not |
| 19 |
change a function to use stack-smashing protection. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-fno-stack-protector-all makes gcc just do it for every function. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
there is also: |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-fno-stack-protector-to-all which if supplied makes -fno-stack-protector |
| 26 |
get promoted to -fno-stack-protector-all. Apparently |
| 27 |
-fno-stack-protector-to-all is on by default in all current gcc profiles |
| 28 |
so that means that at the moment if you specify -fno-stack-protector you |
| 29 |
really get -fno-stack-protector-all. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Hope that's clear! :-) |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Duncan Coutts : Gentoo Developer (Haskell herd team lead) |
| 35 |
email : dcoutts at gentoo dot org |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives