[Bug target/29838] -fstack-protector shouldn't use TLS in freestanding mode

2019-01-02 Thread egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29838 --- Comment #13 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #12) > See also PR78875. That's been closed since you commented.

[Bug target/29838] -fstack-protector shouldn't use TLS in freestanding mode

2017-01-17 Thread tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29838 --- Comment #12 from Thomas Schwinge --- See also PR78875.

[Bug target/29838] -fstack-protector shouldn't use TLS in freestanding mode

2015-01-08 Thread egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29838 Eric Gallager egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||egall at

[Bug target/29838] -fstack-protector shouldn't use TLS in freestanding mode

2006-12-15 Thread tschwinge at gnu dot org
--- Comment #10 from tschwinge at gnu dot org 2006-12-15 19:30 --- Roland McGrath proposed the following: ``I think it really ought to be controlled by a -mno-stack-protector-tls or suchlike, for complete flexibility. Obviously it should default to disabled for -ffreestanding.'' --

[Bug target/29838] -fstack-protector shouldn't use TLS in freestanding mode

2006-11-15 Thread samuel dot thibault at ens-lyon dot org
--- Comment #3 from samuel dot thibault at ens-lyon dot org 2006-11-15 09:33 --- Mmm, if I have to use another target for avoiding my default target's specific stuff, what is the use of -ffreestanding? Does that mean that we will have to add a linux-kernel target (as opposed to

[Bug target/29838] -fstack-protector shouldn't use TLS in freestanding mode

2006-11-15 Thread tschwinge at gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from tschwinge at gnu dot org 2006-11-15 10:11 --- Cced to Jakub Jelinek, who originally implemented this functionality. Could you please comment on this issue? -- tschwinge at gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug target/29838] -fstack-protector shouldn't use TLS in freestanding mode

2006-11-15 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-15 10:23 --- Linux kernel has this support planned: http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/08/16/216 http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/08/16/217 http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/08/16/218 http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/08/16/220

[Bug target/29838] -fstack-protector shouldn't use TLS in freestanding mode

2006-11-15 Thread samuel dot thibault at ens-lyon dot org
--- Comment #6 from samuel dot thibault at ens-lyon dot org 2006-11-15 10:30 --- So you are saying that gcc now imposes (whatever the kernel) kernel-land and user-land to use the same TLS scheme, and now requires people to build a cross-compiler before building a kernel from another

[Bug target/29838] -fstack-protector shouldn't use TLS in freestanding mode

2006-11-15 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-15 10:37 --- Using %fs:0x28/%gs:0x28 on x86_64-linux resp. %gs:0x14 on i?86-linux is part of the ABI. -ffreestanding is not supposed to change the ABI, so if you don't want to use this ABI, just use a different target (x86_64-elf

[Bug target/29838] -fstack-protector shouldn't use TLS in freestanding mode

2006-11-15 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-15 10:41 --- If you use __thread in -ffreestanding it is the same, you don't get emulated TLS either. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29838

[Bug target/29838] -fstack-protector shouldn't use TLS in freestanding mode

2006-11-15 Thread samuel dot thibault at ens-lyon dot org
--- Comment #9 from samuel dot thibault at ens-lyon dot org 2006-11-15 11:01 --- About not using -fstack-protector, the problem is that it is the default on ubuntu for instance. That would mean we have to explicitely use -fno-stack-protector, but only for recent versions of gcc, so

[Bug target/29838] -fstack-protector shouldn't use TLS in freestanding mode

2006-11-14 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-15 02:50 --- Seems to me, you should not be using a target that defines TARGET_THREAD_SSP_OFFSET for -ffreestanding mode. Also IIRC the x86_64 Linux has a different TLS base register which fixes this issue there. --