Hi Chung-Lin. Could you please take care of this upstream? The short
story is that many distributions, including Fedora and Ubuntu, build
GCC with the stack protector turned on by default. This is both
inappropriate for and could interfere with libgcc. We'd like to
ensure the stack protector is
I agree. It's also inappropriate for something as low level as libgcc
to have dependencies on other libraries such as libssp.
We'll propose a patch adding '-fno-stack-protector' to the gcc list
and see how it goes.
-- Michael
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> On 9/1/2010 2
On 9/1/2010 2:10 PM, Michael Hope wrote:
> 3. Should libgcc be built without -fstack-protector?
To put it more strongly, I believe that libgcc should not be built with
-fstack-protector.
I don't think there's any reason to expect that all code in libgcc would
continue to work with stack-protect
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 1:41 AM, wrote:
> On 01/09/2010 15:24, "ext Loïc Minier" wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010, Michael Hope wrote:
>>> The solution is to add -fno-stack-protector to the libgcc build
>>> options and rebuild the compiler. I've heard (but can't track down
>>> the link) that the A
On 01/09/2010 15:24, "ext Loïc Minier" wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010, Michael Hope wrote:
>> This results in the libgcc function '_gcc_Unwind_Backtrace' being
>> built with the stack protector and the glibc library 'libanl' without.
>> At static link time GCC sees that the stack protector is
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010, Michael Hope wrote:
> This results in the libgcc function '_gcc_Unwind_Backtrace' being
> built with the stack protector and the glibc library 'libanl' without.
> At static link time GCC sees that the stack protector is off and
> skips linking against libssp, causing the miss
