From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-68436-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 5876 invoked by alias); 15 Nov 2009 21:52:23 -0000
Received: (qmail 5867 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Nov 2009 21:52:22 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (83.163.83.176)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:51:18 +0000
Received: from glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost [127.0.0.1]) 	by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nAFLmapc010127; 	Sun, 15 Nov 2009 22:48:36 +0100 (CET)
Received: (from kettenis@localhost) 	by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id nAFLmYPK018249; 	Sun, 15 Nov 2009 22:48:34 +0100 (CET)
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:52:00 -0000
Message-Id: <200911152148.nAFLmYPK018249@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
To: joseph@codesourcery.com
CC: drow@false.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, pedro@codesourcery.com,         uweigand@de.ibm.com
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0911151833510.28152@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> 	(joseph@codesourcery.com)
Subject: Re: RFC: Longjmp vs LD_POINTER_GUARD revisited
References: <20091115173429.GB23483@caradoc.them.org> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0911151833510.28152@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-11/txt/msg00343.txt.bz2

> Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 18:38:19 +0000 (UTC)
> From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com>
> 
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> 
> > should continue stepping.  For x86_64 glibc, the magic name is
> > "__longjmp".  Otherwise, we do a frame check as before.
> 
> Nowadays you may need to handle ____longjmp_chk for glibc 2.11 as well.  
> Because distribution compilers may or may not enable _FORTIFY_SOURCE by 
> default, I suppose in principle the tests should be run explicitly with 
> different settings.

Isn't it a bit ridiculous that glibc, which is a GNU project, makes
the life of GDB, another GNU project, so difficult?