Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "somenonstaticmethod".
2012 Oct 03
1
[LLVMdev] [PROPOSAL] Adding support for -fstack-protector-strong
...tack and call methods on them. Is it possible
> to tighten up the heuristic slightly so that this isn't the case?
I don't see any inherent difference (for this purpose) between
void foo() {
int x;
someFunc(&x);
}
and
void foo() {
SomeClass x;
x.someNonStaticMethod();
}
It's just that C++ is so good at obscuring the details. Granted there is
no & operator in the second case, but the address of the stack-local object
is available to the called method without any hijinks, just like the address
of the stack-local variable is available to someFunc i...
2012 Oct 02
0
[LLVMdev] [PROPOSAL] Adding support for -fstack-protector-strong
On 2 Oct 2012, at 03:26, Magee, Josh wrote:
> 1) An address of a local variable is taken in such a way as to expose the
> address of a stack location.
> - Example: the address of a local on the RHS of an assignment, the
> address of a local passed into function.
This sounds like something that would be triggered for any function containing a block, even if the
2012 Oct 02
5
[LLVMdev] [PROPOSAL] Adding support for -fstack-protector-strong
Hello,
I plan to implement "Stack Smashing Protection - Strong" support in LLVM.
Below is a description of this feature and an overview of the implementation
plan. I have divided up the implementation into stages that can be delivered
incrementally.
I'm looking for any feedback (suggestions, requests, etc) before I actually
begin the work.
Thank you!
Josh