On 07/24/2017 02:57 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> Sadly, there's no way short of listing them and keeping that list
>> up-to-date over time by hand. If we want to do that, I would suggest
>> we note the processors with full support as well as those with partial
>> support using the
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:36:05AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 07/20/2017 07:23 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 11:17:19PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > I think the documentation for the new option should say this only
> > provides partial protection on targets that do not
On 07/20/2017 07:23 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 11:17:19PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>> The biggest change in this update to patch 01/08 is moving of stack
>> clash protection out of -fstack-check= and into its own option,
>> -fstack-clash-protection. I
Hi Jeff,
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 11:17:19PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> The biggest change in this update to patch 01/08 is moving of stack
> clash protection out of -fstack-check= and into its own option,
> -fstack-clash-protection. I believe other issues raised by reviewers
> have been
The biggest change in this update to patch 01/08 is moving of stack
clash protection out of -fstack-check= and into its own option,
-fstack-clash-protection. I believe other issues raised by reviewers
have been addressed as well.
--
This patch introduces a new option -fstack-clash-protection
