From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <libc-alpha-return-66861-listarch-libc-alpha=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 14752 invoked by alias); 1 Feb 2016 18:09:29 -0000
Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <libc-alpha.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:libc-alpha-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/>
List-Post: <mailto:libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 14445 invoked by uid 89); 1 Feb 2016 18:09:26 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=
X-HELO: mail-qk0-f170.google.com
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
        h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date
         :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=3rqLtIU54w0ucsWFXRj0Y7Rs8iDMEmAdARA4NwxCFrM=;
        b=Flsyx8ReMRswINOkf9OmCDwaOHvclXzcmdZgi2knzmow+oK45dpHq7l7ZZtwlcKy20
         lVh/t7yrvcMGVv6UiNTmqhDg1K75WTEvrJPQDqWjzSad89K/q+j2sPo0lTqWG+e6PMdw
         zv2qHqrotg/igBxPQ/vv1qT75j0cZgQZ7HSi35J57Iv0Du/skl+vKsv9+icIweZIYTpT
         6pduVzeoT//yxmhMbmUhF2Uxg71h5Ip+TH100SldB0DXiiKLN3B3vMU4ytlWYXOBff7I
         +sdWewWTQG1jBarUYyGO0ontOpj2Teg3j3q4AP0dmfchqZRPckhJwhitzmo/fJ+HVWGq
         O+Rg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOTx4vkism1xIwfNUixftl3azTARVQvAxHa78uNMUPz07XoGs7AM7cJ3E/X6bBA1Th4R
X-Received: by 10.55.31.7 with SMTP id f7mr30291176qkf.100.1454350161645;
        Mon, 01 Feb 2016 10:09:21 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] posix: Remove dynamic memory allocation from
 execl{e,p}
To: Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>
References: <1454343665-1706-1-git-send-email-adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>
 <1454343665-1706-2-git-send-email-adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>
 <alpine.DEB.2.10.1602011648030.2674@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
 <56AF936C.6070907@linaro.org>
 <alpine.DEB.2.10.1602011752310.2674@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org
From: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>
Message-ID: <56AF9F4E.40901@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2016 18:09:00 -0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1602011752310.2674@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2016-02/txt/msg00032.txt.bz2



On 01-02-2016 15:53, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Feb 2016, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
> 
>> Right, it is not ensuring the safeness. Is '-fstack-check' the suffice 
>> option to ensure it or do we need a more strict one?
> 
> I think it's the right option, but don't know if it works reliably across 
> supported architectures and GCC versions (or, at least, does not generate 
> wrong code even if the checks aren't fully safe in all cases) - it's not 
> very widely used.
> 

I think we can use this option, since it supported on gcc (and I also do not
have any other better option in mind that fits in these function memory
constraints).