Re: Glibc 2.12 issue

2010-09-01 Thread Michael Hope
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

Re: Glibc 2.12 issue

2010-09-01 Thread Michael Hope
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

Re: Glibc 2.12 issue

2010-09-01 Thread Mark Mitchell
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

Re: Glibc 2.12 issue

2010-09-01 Thread Michael Hope
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

Re: Glibc 2.12 issue

2010-09-01 Thread Alexander.Kanevskiy
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

Re: Glibc 2.12 issue

2010-09-01 Thread Loïc Minier
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

Re: Glibc 2.12 issue

2010-08-30 Thread Michael Hope
Hi Alexander. I've looked into the problem and the linker error is caused by a mix of stack protector options between libgcc and the C library. GCC includes a feature called the stack smashing protector which detects writing past the end of a stack based object. It's quite nice as it gives decen