| Message ID | df7340ba-907c-1352-46d6-f67b0f86c9fb@foss.arm.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [GCC/testsuite] Improve fstack_protector effective target | expand |
On 11/30/2017 09:40 AM, Thomas Preudhomme wrote: > Hi, > > Effective target fstack_protector fails to return an error for > newlib-based target (such as arm-none-eabi targets) which does not > support stack protector. This is due to the test being too simplist for > stack protection code to be generated by GCC: it does not contain a > local buffer and does not read unknown input. > > This commit adds a small local buffer with a copy of the filename to > trigger stack protector code to be generated. The filename is used > instead of the full path so as to ensure the size will fit in the local > buffer. > > ChangeLog entry is as follows: > > *** gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog *** > > 2017-11-28 Thomas Preud'homme <thomas.preudhomme@arm.com> > > * lib/target-supports.exp (check_effective_target_fstack_protector): > Copy filename in local buffer to trigger stack protection. > > Testing: Ran gcc.dg/pr38616 on arm-none-eabi and arm-linux-gnueabihf, > the former is now UNSUPPORTED while the latter continues to PASS. > > Is this ok for stage3? OK. jeff
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp index d30fd368922713d3695f22710197ce7094c977cd..8aff16a25823ec48e76ad6ad8fdc8db998a45877 100644 --- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp +++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp @@ -1064,7 +1064,11 @@ proc check_effective_target_static {} { # Return 1 if the target supports -fstack-protector proc check_effective_target_fstack_protector {} { return [check_runtime fstack_protector { - int main (void) { return 0; } + #include <string.h> + int main (int argc, char *argv[]) { + char buf[64]; + return !strcpy (buf, strrchr (argv[0], '/')); + } } "-fstack-protector"] }