This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: stack-protector configure test and MIPS64


On Mon, 21 May 2012, Roland McGrath wrote:

> > So, is the patch OK then, as a patch known to improve things for at least 
> > one system in practice and not known to make things worse for any compiler 
> > people are actually trying to use to build glibc?
> 
> Yes.  It would be better with some comments about why we're filtering out
> all other symbols and about the general fragility of the situation.

I've checked it in with the comment:

# On some architectures, there are architecture-specific undefined
# symbols (resolved by the linker), so filter out unknown symbols.
# This will fail to produce the correct result if the compiler
# defaults to -fstack-protector but this produces an undefined symbol
# other than __stack_chk_fail.  However, compilers like that have not
# been encountered in practice.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]