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 <m...@codesourcery.com> wrote: > 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-protection checks inserted (e.g., low-level > primitives for thread safety or exception-handling, where chaos may > ensue if a fault occurs in the midst of the stack-protection code). > Furthermore, those checks will increase overhead for all users of the > library. And, if libgcc has dependencies on other shared libraries, > that could potentially break binary compatibility across Linux > distributions. > > If someone wants to build libgcc with -fstack-protector, that would > require an assessment of all code in libgcc to make sure that is safe. > libgcc is emphatically not "application" code. > > -- > Mark Mitchell > CodeSourcery > m...@codesourcery.com > (650) 331-3385 x713 > > _______________________________________________ > linaro-toolchain mailing list > linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org > http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain > _______________________________________________ linaro-toolchain mailing list linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
