On 2/2/26 7:25 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Sun, Feb 1, 2026 at 10:27 AM Jason Merrill <[email protected]> wrote:
On 1/31/26 8:11 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
Change in the v8 patch:
1. __stack_chk_guard must be an uintptr_t variable.
2. Remove c_stack_protect_guard_decl_p and
duplicate_stack_protect_guard_decl_p.
Thanks.
@@ -926,7 +926,7 @@ default_stack_protect_guard (void)
t = build_decl (UNKNOWN_LOCATION,
VAR_DECL, get_identifier ("__stack_chk_guard"),
- ptr_type_node);
+ lang_hooks.types.type_for_mode (ptr_mode, 1));
Should this change be conditional on
targetm.stack_protect_guard_symbol_p ()?
Changed.
+ /* Define this to indicate that the stack protection guard symbol,
+ "__stack_chk_guard", is an internal symbol. */
+ if (targetm.stack_protect_guard_symbol_p ())
+ cpp_define (pfile, "__stack_protection_guard_is_internal_symbol__");
Why "internal"? I read "internal" as internal linkage, i.e. "static",
and in the testcases the symbols all have external linkage, and it's
based on TARGET_SSP_GLOBAL_GUARD.
Maybe the macro should be something like
__stack_protection_guard_declared__?
Changed.
Actually, do we need the macro at all? How will user code differ based
on whether it's defined? The existing ssp-global.c suggests that people
could already define __stack_chk_guard before this patch.
Jason
