Avoid two SSP ABI's for AArch64.

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 12/09/2013 05:08 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> Thanks,
> 
> I do not expect to need to change/add the alternative ABI interface, but
> knowing that it should be technically possible means I can go forward
> with what I believe today to be the correct decision with much more
> confidence.
> 
> So on that basis I think we should stick with the default ABI -- ie
> using __stack_chk_guard.

Thank you. In that case we have consensus to use the existing ABI which
loads the stack guard from a symbol for stack smashing protection.

That means that Kumar need to drop his two patches for gcc and glibc.

I consider the glibc patch dropped (since I was the reviewer).

Cheers,
Carlos.