Hi, On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 14:27:37 +0100 "Peter Mazinger" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello, > > I would personally create a new config option for FORTIFY stuff > (independently of SSP), provide *_chk() functions only if the config > option is enabled and move __chk_fail out of ssp.c (for ex. into > fortify.c) > > libc_hidden_proto/def is OK for the __chk_fail function itself, but > not enough for __stack_chk_fail (since it provides only the > __GI___stack_chk_fail but does not use it) I have plans for working on the FORTIFY stuff after 0.9.32 release, which is why I went ahead and set up the libc_hidden_proto/def for it. Would you prefer I resubmit with only the __chk_fail function set up for now? William _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
