| Message ID | 20170420222244.GH24251@gate.crashing.org |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
Hi Segher, On Thu, 20 Apr 2017, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > + <li>There are new options <code>-mstack-protector-guard=global</code>, > + <code>-mstack-protector-guard=tls</code>, > + <code>-mstack-protector-guard-reg=</code>, and > + <code>-mstack-protector-guard-offset=</code>, to change how the stack > + protector gets the value to use as canary.</li> no comma before "to change". And perhaps simply "New options...change how..."? The patch is fine if you consider this feedback. Well, one question: Don't these options do more than just changing how the value is obtained? The way I read the documentation the first two initiate generation of stack protection code? Am I confused, or should either the web patch or the documentation be adjusted? Gerald
Hi! Thank you for looking at this. On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 02:39:36PM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Thu, 20 Apr 2017, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > + <li>There are new options <code>-mstack-protector-guard=global</code>, > > + <code>-mstack-protector-guard=tls</code>, > > + <code>-mstack-protector-guard-reg=</code>, and > > + <code>-mstack-protector-guard-offset=</code>, to change how the stack > > + protector gets the value to use as canary.</li> > > no comma before "to change". Oxford comma :-) I'll get rid of it, sure. > And perhaps simply "New options...change how..."? Sure, good plan. > The patch is fine if you consider this feedback. > > Well, one question: Don't these options do more than just changing > how the value is obtained? The way I read the documentation the first > two initiate generation of stack protection code? Am I confused, or > should either the web patch or the documentation be adjusted? No, this is correct. The documentation could be clearer yes. I'll try to improve it; help is more than welcome ;-) Segher
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >>> + <li>There are new options <code>-mstack-protector-guard=global</code>, >>> + <code>-mstack-protector-guard=tls</code>, >>> + <code>-mstack-protector-guard-reg=</code>, and >>> + <code>-mstack-protector-guard-offset=</code>, to change how the stack >>> + protector gets the value to use as canary.</li> >> no comma before "to change". > Oxford comma :-) I'll get rid of it, sure. The comma before "and" (and the last item in the list) is an Oxford comma, and I'm all for keeping it. The one before "to change" would be an Amsterdam comma. :-) >> Well, one question: Don't these options do more than just changing >> how the value is obtained? The way I read the documentation the first >> two initiate generation of stack protection code? Am I confused, or >> should either the web patch or the documentation be adjusted? > No, this is correct. The documentation could be clearer yes. I'll > try to improve it; help is more than welcome ;-) I'll volunteer myself to review any patch (to see whether it helps improve my understanding and otherwise), but am afraid I can't come up with one. Gerald
Index: htdocs/gcc-7/changes.html =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-7/changes.html,v retrieving revision 1.77 diff -U 3 -r1.77 changes.html --- htdocs/gcc-7/changes.html 17 Apr 2017 22:12:35 -0000 1.77 +++ htdocs/gcc-7/changes.html 20 Apr 2017 22:04:58 -0000 @@ -1005,6 +1005,11 @@ <li>GCC now diagnoses inline assembly that clobbers register r2. This has always been invalid code, and is no longer quietly tolerated.</li> + <li>There are new options <code>-mstack-protector-guard=global</code>, + <code>-mstack-protector-guard=tls</code>, + <code>-mstack-protector-guard-reg=</code>, and + <code>-mstack-protector-guard-offset=</code>, to change how the stack + protector gets the value to use as canary.</li> </ul> <!-- <h3 id="s390">S/390, System z, IBM z Systems</h3> -->