[Bug middle-end/95249] Stack protector runtime has to waste one byte on null terminator

[bugdal at aerifal dot cx]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95249

--- Comment #2 from Rich Felker  ---
Indeed, using an extra zero pad byte could bump the stack frame size by 4 or 8
or 16 bytes, or could leave it unchanged, depending on alignment prior to
adding the byte and the alignment requirements of the target.

[Bug middle-end/95249] Stack protector runtime has to waste one byte on null terminator

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95249

--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski  ---
I doubt you could skip one byte as the protector location has to be aligned. 
So the trade off is adding at least 4 or 8 bytes (depending on which ABI is
used) or 8bits less of the randomness.