https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98997
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Andy Lutomirski from comment #4)
> I should add: on brief inspection, that patch looks like an ABI break for
> -fcf-protection=none
True if __builtin_longjmp and __builtin_setjmp are compiled by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98997
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Andy Lutomirski from comment #3)
> What is -fcf-protection=stack actually supposed to do as compared to
It is -fcf-protection=return.
> -fcf-protection=none? Is it valid to run code compiled with
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98997
--- Comment #4 from Andy Lutomirski ---
I should add: on brief inspection, that patch looks like an ABI break for
-fcf-protection=none
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98997
--- Comment #3 from Andy Lutomirski ---
What is -fcf-protection=stack actually supposed to do as compared to
-fcf-protection=none? Is it valid to run code compiled with
-fcf-protection=none with SHSTK enabled? If so, then I wonder why
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98997
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98997
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |10.2.1
Target|
