Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "uvabwp".
2019 Dec 04
2
[cfe-dev] clang and -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=1
...__memcpy_chk
works correctly, as far as I know.
100% sure. Let's have a look at the output of
#include <string.h>
static char dest[10];
char* square(int n) {
memcpy(dest, "hello", n);
return dest;
}
compiled with -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=1 -O1 : https://godbolt.org/z/UvABWp
Clang issues a call to memcpy, while gcc issues a call to __memcpy_chk.
The call to __memcpy_chk performs extra runtime checks memcpy doesn't,
and clang doesn't generate the extra checks inline either. This is a
separate
concern from the accuracy of __builtin_object_size, just a different...
2019 Dec 03
5
clang and -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=1
Hi folks (CCing llvm-dev, but that's probably more of a cfe-dev topic),
As a follow-up to that old thread about -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=n
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2015-November/045845.html
And, more recently, to this fedora thread where clang/llvm -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE
support is claimed to be only partial:
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2020
I dig into the glibc headers in