From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22054 invoked by alias); 8 Aug 2005 22:48:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 22022 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Aug 2005 22:48:42 -0000 Received: from 41-052.adsl.zetnet.co.uk (HELO mail.esperi.org.uk) (194.247.41.52) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Aug 2005 22:48:42 +0000 Received: from esperi.org.uk (nix@amaterasu.srvr.nix [192.168.14.14]) by mail.esperi.org.uk (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j78MmVia015595; Mon, 8 Aug 2005 23:48:32 +0100 Received: (from nix@localhost) by esperi.org.uk (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id j78MmU52031525; Mon, 8 Aug 2005 23:48:30 +0100 To: Richard Henderson Cc: Jack Howarth , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: does -fstack-protector work for gcc 4.1 on Darwin 8? References: <20050804013913.DE1101DC06D@bromo.msbb.uc.edu> <20050804034851.GB18262@redhat.com> From: Nix X-Emacs: (setq software-quality (/ 1 number-of-authors)) Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 22:48:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20050804034851.GB18262@redhat.com> (Richard Henderson's message of "4 Aug 2005 04:50:56 +0100") Message-ID: <87hde0hwox.fsf@amaterasu.srvr.nix> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.4 (Corporate Culture, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2005-08/txt/msg00240.txt.bz2 On 4 Aug 2005, Richard Henderson whispered secretively: > On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 09:39:13PM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote: >> Do you think I should be able to build gcc itself with the >> -fstack-protector flag and what is the most appropriate way to >> achieve that (ie brute force using a CFLAG or some configure >> flag)? > > Considering that I don't think that self-building with > -fstack-protector will ever be common, I don't think we > ought to spend too many brain cells on this. It was always possible with the SSP implementation, FWIW. (This was useful to get a libgcc compiled with -fstack-protector, although it's true that changing the TCFLAGS in gcc/Makefile also lets you do that.) > The only way to bootstrap with -fstack-protector without > existing support in libc is to use a top-level bootstrap. ... which is reasonable, I think. (This was also true of SSP.) -- `Tor employs several thousand editors who they keep in dank subterranean editing facilities not unlike Moria' -- James Nicoll