On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 08:37:40AM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 06:33:51AM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 10:54:24AM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> > > > To support smash stack protection gcc emits __stack_chk_fail
> > > > calls on all targets. On t
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 06:33:51AM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 10:54:24AM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> > > To support smash stack protection gcc emits __stack_chk_fail
> > > calls on all targets. On top of that gcc emits __stack_chk_fail_local
> > > calls at least on i
On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 10:54:24AM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> > To support smash stack protection gcc emits __stack_chk_fail
> > calls on all targets. On top of that gcc emits __stack_chk_fail_local
> > calls at least on i386 and powerpc:
(Only on 32-bit -fPIC -msecure-plt, for Power).
> There i
On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 10:53:31AM +, Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
> [ sending it to musl, glibc and gcc devel mailing list as we need
> to build a consensus across the projects ]
>
> To support smash stack protection gcc emits __stack_chk_fail
> calls on all targets. On top of that gcc emits _
[ sending it to musl, glibc and gcc devel mailing list as we need
to build a consensus across the projects ]
To support smash stack protection gcc emits __stack_chk_fail
calls on all targets. On top of that gcc emits __stack_chk_fail_local
calls at least on i386 and powerpc:
https://bugs.gen
