On 2023-08-03 00:03:58+0800, Zhangjin Wu wrote:
Hi, Willy, Hi Thomas
I'm so happy to share with you, we have solved all of the left found issues, include the ones about ppc and the missing poweroff options for the tinyconfig series, will renew both series ;-)
Can we stick to one series at a time?
Further compared the preprocessed files, found the root cause is the new compiler using 'no_stack_protector' instead of '__optimize__("-fno-stack-protector")'. And the attribute 'no_stack_protector' breaks our "omit-frame-pointer" like the failure with '-O0' we fixed before.
I checked some of the other architectures, they didn't have the same issue, but test shows the 'no_stack_protector' attribute does have such compability issue here.
I learned the commit message of tools/include/nolibc/compiler.h, seems __optimize__("-fno-stack-protector") is enough for all of the nolibc supported architectures? is it ok for us to simply give up 'no_stack_protector' eventully? otherwise, we should manually disable 'no_stack_protector' for ppc32:
#define __no_stack_protector __attribute__((__optimize__("-fno-stack-protector")))Hello, any suggestion here? ;-)
Patience :-)
no_stack_protector is the offically documented mechanism to disable stack protector for a function. As it works for all other architectures this seems like a compiler bug.
If we want to work around it I would prefer to have both attributes.
[..]
Thomas