--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #6 from ludovic at ludovic-brenta dot org 2007-11-21 10:44
---
I note that this (impressive) patch is not in mainline yet; it seems nobody has
reviewed it yet. In the patch, you say: -fstack-check is broken in the 4.x
series of compilers in the sense that you cannot
--- Comment #7 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-21 12:34 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
AdaCore has done it on 7 architectures and is ready to contribute this code,
see http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-11/msg01846.html
Why don't you ping directly the relevant
--- Comment #8 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-21 12:40
---
Why don't you ping directly the relevant maintainers?
Probably because I have other things more interesting to do. :-)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34118
--- Comment #9 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-21 13:17 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
Why don't you ping directly the relevant maintainers?
Probably because I have other things more interesting to do. :-)
Then I humbly think you should have clearly stated that in your
--- Comment #10 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-21 13:34
---
Then I humbly think you should have clearly stated that in your email and
asked people interested in the patch to ping the relevant maintainers on
your behalf.
That's what I've sort of done in the second
--- Comment #11 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-21 13:45 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
Then I humbly think you should have clearly stated that in your email and
asked people interested in the patch to ping the relevant maintainers on
your behalf.
That's what I've sort
--- Comment #4 from ludovic at ludovic-brenta dot org 2007-11-20 12:31
---
Questions:
1) If Targparm.Stack_Check_Probes_On_Target is False (i.e. the GNAT
Stack-limit checking is in effect), what circumstances would cause the stack
check to not detect an overflow (i.e. unreliable stack
--- Comment #5 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-20 15:37
---
1) If Targparm.Stack_Check_Probes_On_Target is False (i.e. the GNAT
Stack-limit checking is in effect), what circumstances would cause the
stack check to not detect an overflow (i.e. unreliable stack
--- Comment #1 from niklas dot holsti at tidorum dot fi 2007-11-16 18:19
---
It would certainly be in the Ada spirit to have stack-checking enabled by
default.
If GCC offers a selection of stack-checking methods, I think the default method
should be the most reliable and general one,
--- Comment #2 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-16 18:35
---
GCC supports two ways to implement stack overflow checks: using guard pages
called probes, and inserting stack checking code into every subprogram.
That's confused. Probes are not guard pages and you always
On 16 Nov 2007 18:35:15 -, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's not true of probes in general, only of the generic implementation of
the probing method in GCC. The implementation on Alpha/Tru64 doesn't suffer
from this defect for example.
Or even the spu-elf
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gmail dot com 2007-11-16 20:26 ---
Subject: Re: Please enable stack checking (-fstack-check) by default
On 16 Nov 2007 18:35:15 -, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's not true of probes in general, only of the generic
13 matches
Mail list logo
