On 07/01/14 15:34, Daniel Gutson wrote:
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote:
On 03/19/14 08:06, Marcos Díaz wrote:
Well, finally I have the assignment, could you please review this patch?
Thanks.
My first thought was that if we've marked the function with an explicit
static protector attribute, then it ought to be protected regardless of any
flags. Is there some reason to require the -fstack-protect-explicit?
They can work separately, since the logic is:
if NOT stack-protect-explicit
a function can be protected by the current logic OR it has the attribute
(a function may be not automatically protected with the current logic)
ELSE // stack-protect-explicit
only functions marked with the attribute will be protected.
IOW, when no stack-protect-explicit, the functions may not be
protected due to current logic, so the attribute acts as an override
to request protection.
Sorry this took so long. I fixed a variety of whitespace errors, wrote
a better ChangeLog, re-bootstrapped and regression tested the patch
(given the long delay, I felt it was the least I could do). Approved
and installed.
Sorry for the terribly long delay.
jeff
