On Fri, 2012-11-30 at 14:22 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 1:09 PM, mathieu lacage > <mathieu.lacage@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Well, it seems to be segfaulting on my box because the default stack > > space is smaller that the above (big ?) array. > > Please reply to the mailing list, not just to me. Thanks. stupid mailer keeps ignoring my "reply all" :/ > > I see. There does seem to be something wrong here; the split stack > code ought to have allocated a new stack for you. > > > How is this expected to > > fail if I am not using gold ? (at link-time or run-time ?) > > If you don't use gold your test case will fail at runtime because the > main function won't realize that it needs to allocate enough stack > space for printf. > > > Are you aware of anyone who has tried to rebuild a distribution with > > this flag and make the system gcc use this flag by default? It would be > > nice from a usability perspective to not have to worry about stack size > > ever without having to pay too high for this. > > I am not aware of anybody who has done this. I think it would be a > significant effort. Right. I am merely curious. Having -fsplit-stack work out of the box for new binaries and libraries I compile on normal distributions is good enough for me. I will report on further experiments, with PIE executables on other distributions and with other gcc versions. thanks a lot, Mathieu
