[Bug c/65958] -fstack-check breaks __builtin(alloca)

[basile at opensource dot dyc.edu]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65958

Anthony G. Basile  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||basile at opensource dot 
dyc.edu

--- Comment #1 from Anthony G. Basile  ---
We should add that we've only seen this on arm arch.

[Bug middle-end/58245] -fstack-protector[-all] does not protect functions that call noreturn functions

[basile at opensource dot dyc.edu]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58245

Anthony G. Basile  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||basile at opensource dot 
dyc.edu

--- Comment #8 from Anthony G. Basile  ---
Gentoo's hardened toolchain is stumbling on this bug and its a blocker for us
to get musl + gentoo working nicely.  Has there been any movement on it?

[Bug regression/64812] [4.9 regression] x86 LibreOffice Build failure: undefined reference to acquire

[basile at opensource dot dyc.edu]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64812

Anthony G. Basile  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||basile at opensource dot 
dyc.edu

--- Comment #4 from Anthony G. Basile  ---
(In reply to Luke from comment #0)
> LibreOffice 4.2 or newer fails to build in a clean build environment on
> Linux x86-32 with gcc 4.9.0, 4.9.1, and 4.9.2. However, the build succeeds
> on an otherwise identical x86-64 system, and it also succeeds with gcc 4.8.2
> (on x86-32 and x86-64). The build also succeeds with clang 3.4 (on x86-32
> and x86-64).
> 

We are seeing this in gentoo on x86_64 with gcc-4.9.  See

https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=538348

(In reply to Timo Teräs from comment #3)
> As a workaround removing -fvisibility-inlines-hidden from the build flags,
> makes things work in the libreoffice.

What's confusing me is that some of our users are seeing this bug and others
are not.  This leads me to think maybe its a c++ abi mismatch because we do
allow our users to build their systems using any recent version of gcc (and c++
abi emitted by 4.8 is not compatbile with that emitted by 4.9).  However, that
fact tat removing -fvisibility-inlines-hidden fixes this argues against my
suspicion.  So why would some of our users it this and others not?