Re: [PATCH] static buffer overflow checking

2008-09-10 Thread Marcus Meissner
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:50:42PM +0200, Michael Karcher wrote: > Am Mittwoch, den 10.09.2008, 22:38 +0200 schrieb Marcus Meissner: > > I just tested some code with -O0 and the functioncall still gets > > optimized away. This is with gcc 4.1 and gcc 4.3. gcc 2.95 does not. > If it's just a perform

Re: [PATCH] static buffer overflow checking

2008-09-10 Thread Michael Karcher
Am Mittwoch, den 10.09.2008, 22:38 +0200 schrieb Marcus Meissner: > I just tested some code with -O0 and the functioncall still gets > optimized away. This is with gcc 4.1 and gcc 4.3. gcc 2.95 does not. If it's just a performance pessimisation with -O0, I don't care. If I get compiler or linker er

Re: [PATCH] static buffer overflow checking

2008-09-10 Thread Marcus Meissner
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:27:06PM +0200, Michael Karcher wrote: > Am Mittwoch, den 10.09.2008, 22:12 +0200 schrieb Marcus Meissner: > > This approach will not work with -O0, which might be a problem. > If I were to decide, that would kill the patch. I really like to > recompile the dlls I am curre

Re: [PATCH] static buffer overflow checking

2008-09-10 Thread Michael Karcher
Am Mittwoch, den 10.09.2008, 22:12 +0200 schrieb Marcus Meissner: > This approach will not work with -O0, which might be a problem. If I were to decide, that would kill the patch. I really like to recompile the dlls I am currently debugging with -O0, as that makes following the code flow much easie