| 1 |
> For a transition we can probably build everything with -fPIE but not |
| 2 |
> link with -pie. If we want that to happen fast, gcc-6 might do that and |
| 3 |
> gcc-7 add the -pie option. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
I am not entirely convinced that a transition period of one gcc version |
| 6 |
is enough for a smooth transition [1]. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
It might be better to go through a quick transition process that |
| 9 |
requires a world rebuild. - In particular we already forced everyone on |
| 10 |
~amd64 to play beta tester in this regard [2,3]. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Anyway the current use flag situation is a mess and has to be cleaned |
| 13 |
up asap. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
So, dos anyone recall why USE=pie was masked for >gcc-6.2 for everyone |
| 16 |
except amd64? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Related to that |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
- for which architectures shall we unmask the use flag? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
- shall we use.force a certain behavior per profile, or keep the flag |
| 23 |
unpinned? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
After having thought about the issue for a bit I still want to propose |
| 27 |
what we have already accidentally done - switch to USE=pie per default |
| 28 |
for gcc-6. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Best, |
| 31 |
Matthias |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
[1] Indeed *every* major linux distribution for which I have an lxc |
| 35 |
container has -pie enabled. If we decide on some slow transition we |
| 36 |
risk to be late to the party by quite a bit. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
[2] Which is extremely unfortunate. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
[3] The fallout I currently see due to enabled USE=pie is noticeably but |
| 41 |
by no stretch crazy bad. After all, static linkage is rarely used |
| 42 |
(with the exception of some languages). |
Archives