On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 03/19/14 08:06, Marcos Díaz wrote: >> >> Well, finally I have the assignment, could you please review this patch? > > Thanks. > > My first thought was that if we've marked the function with an explicit > static protector attribute, then it ought to be protected regardless of any > flags. Is there some reason to require the -fstack-protect-explicit?
They can work separately, since the logic is: if NOT stack-protect-explicit a function can be protected by the current logic OR it has the attribute (a function may be not automatically protected with the current logic) ELSE // stack-protect-explicit only functions marked with the attribute will be protected. IOW, when no stack-protect-explicit, the functions may not be protected due to current logic, so the attribute acts as an override to request protection. > > The patch itself is relatively simple and I don't see anything that looks > terribly wrong at first glance. I think we just need to make sure we're on > the same page WRT needing the -fstack-protect-explicit flag. > > jeff > > -- Daniel F. Gutson Chief Engineering Officer, SPD San Lorenzo 47, 3rd Floor, Office 5 Córdoba, Argentina Phone: +54 351 4217888 / +54 351 4218211 Skype: dgutson
