Glibc 2.12 issue

[Michael Hope]

I agree.  It's also inappropriate for something as low level as libgcc
to have dependencies on other libraries such as libssp.

We'll propose a patch adding '-fno-stack-protector' to the gcc list
and see how it goes.

-- Michael

On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On 9/1/2010 2:10 PM, Michael Hope wrote:
>
>>  3. Should libgcc be built without -fstack-protector?
>
> To put it more strongly, I believe that libgcc should not be built with
> -fstack-protector.
>
> I don't think there's any reason to expect that all code in libgcc would
> continue to work with stack-protection checks inserted (e.g., low-level
> primitives for thread safety or exception-handling, where chaos may
> ensue if a fault occurs in the midst of the stack-protection code).
> Furthermore, those checks will increase overhead for all users of the
> library.  And, if libgcc has dependencies on other shared libraries,
> that could potentially break binary compatibility across Linux
> distributions.
>
> If someone wants to build libgcc with -fstack-protector, that would
> require an assessment of all code in libgcc to make sure that is safe.
> libgcc is emphatically not "application" code.
>
> --
> Mark Mitchell
> CodeSourcery
> mark at codesourcery.com
> (650) 331-3385 x713
>
> _______________________________________________
> linaro-toolchain mailing list
> linaro-toolchain at lists.linaro.org
> http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
>