From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17686 invoked by alias); 7 Nov 2009 10:05:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 16338 invoked by uid 48); 7 Nov 2009 10:05:11 -0000 Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 10:05:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20091107100511.16337.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug middle-end/20548] [4.3/4.4/4.5 regression] ACATS c52103x c52104x c52104y segfault In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-11/txt/msg00625.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #42 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-07 10:05 ------- > As I understand it, there is still a patch pending for i386? Yes, the current stack checking method is not bullet-proof and can fail to detect stack overflows; a warning should be issued in that case though. The enhanced method indeed requires another patch for the x86 back-end, that I plan to resubmit for 4.5 once I've fixed the optimization bug exhibited by a few ACATS tests. > Does anyone plan to backport this patch into gcc-4_4-branch? No, no plan to backport this as far as I'm concerned. Note that some support code is needed in the Ada runtime (init.c, see the comments). > I am considering applying this patch (up to r153918) in Debian's > gnat-4.4. Before I do that, I'd like to know whether this would break > ABI compatibility. Consider the following scenario: -fstack-check is broken with GCC 4.4 on x86/x86-64 Linux, it generates code that will easily segfault so I doubt compatibility really matters. In any case, -fstack-check doesn't change the ABI. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20548