1 |
> I haven't looked at the gcc ebuilds to verify, but I'm guessing the |
2 |
> pro-police stack-protector (and therefore the normal default no- flag that |
3 |
> would turn it off if a hardened profile enabling it by default was in use) |
4 |
> stuff isn't in the default gcc-3.4.x either, but rather a patch added by |
5 |
> the ebuild. gcc4 hasn't gotten to the point yet where hardened is looking |
6 |
> at it much, so the equivalent patches haven't been added there, yet, so |
7 |
> gcc4 ebuilds don't recognize the stack-protector flags. |
8 |
|
9 |
Yeah. I'm prolly not going to consider unmasking gcc4 for atleast 6 |
10 |
months, and even then it'd be within testing profiles only. I think |
11 |
halcy0n is the only one *really* following gcc4 development closely |
12 |
among those maintaining the gentoo toolchain. I've tried it out every |
13 |
few months, but it's still too slow for your average applications |
14 |
(huge/complex C++ applications get speed boosts), and it still pushes |
15 |
out too much buggy code. This is expected, though, with a .0 release. |
16 |
4.0.1 is better, but there's still many regressions. |
17 |
|
18 |
> OTOH, I found yet another package that doesn't yet like gcc4, as well. |
19 |
> util-linux emerges fine with gcc4, which is why I hadn't noticed it b4, |
20 |
> but I tried running cfdisk, and it segfaulted every single time I tried to |
21 |
> load my hard drive! Interestingly enough, it worked fine as a user (that |
22 |
> is, it protested about device access permissions and quit, as one would |
23 |
> expect trying to run it as a user), and even worked just fine when I |
24 |
> mistakenly pointed it at my DVD burner with a burnt DVD+R loaded (well it |
25 |
> said read-only mode, but I wouldn't have expected it to work on the DVD at |
26 |
> all, and it did), but it'd segfault every time I tried to point it at my |
27 |
> hard drive, as root so it could actually read it. I run 100% reiserfs |
28 |
> formatted hard drive partitions, however, and I'm guessing its reiserfs |
29 |
> code isn't gcc4 safe, just yet, tho as I said it emerged fine. Since it |
30 |
> worked with ISO9660 (surprising me), I'm guessing it probably works with |
31 |
> the more common ext2/3 as well. It certainly doesn't like reiserfs, tho, |
32 |
> when compiled with gcc4! As expected, recompiling it with gcc-3.4.4 |
33 |
> worked just fine. (In fact, it was after that remerge that I forgot I had |
34 |
> gcc-3.4.4 selected and did the entire glibc with gcc-3.4.4 instead of the |
35 |
> gcc-4.0.1 I had intended!) |
36 |
|
37 |
reiserfs is buggy when using a good compiler... I don't want to imagine |
38 |
what happens with a beta compiler ;) Also, don't rule out glibc as the |
39 |
culprit for util-linux failing. Recompile it with gcc3.4 with a gcc4 |
40 |
glibc to rule that out and make sure it's code generated by gcc4 IN |
41 |
util-linux that's the problem. |