My understanding is that gcc 12 / clang 9 introduced a new builtin, __builtin_dynamic_object_size, which allows for an improved _FORTIFY_SOURCE=3.
Looking at the OpenOSC source code, I see references to __builtin_object_size but not to __builtin_dynamic_object_size. Can I interpret from this that _FORTIFY_SOURCE=3 offers more security than OpenOSC? If so, can we expect OpenOSC to add support for __builtin_dynamic_object_size, or it's not possible?
My understanding is that gcc 12 / clang 9 introduced a new builtin, __builtin_dynamic_object_size, which allows for an improved _FORTIFY_SOURCE=3.
Looking at the OpenOSC source code, I see references to __builtin_object_size but not to __builtin_dynamic_object_size. Can I interpret from this that _FORTIFY_SOURCE=3 offers more security than OpenOSC? If so, can we expect OpenOSC to add support for __builtin_dynamic_object_size, or it's not possible?