| 1 |
On Wed, 2006-03-01 at 17:17 +0000, Duncan Coutts wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 2006-03-01 at 11:39 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Wednesday 01 March 2006 10:35, Duncan Coutts wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > gcc-3 supports both -nopie and -fno-stack-protector. So always using |
| 5 |
> > > these would be ok if it were not for gcc-4 which doesn't grok |
| 6 |
> > > -fno-stack-protector. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > yes it does |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Oh. I had reports from ppc devs who said that gcc-4 didn't recognise |
| 11 |
> that flag. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> I also heard that gcc-4 contains a re-written stack protector |
| 14 |
> implementation with different semantics and that was why it didn't |
| 15 |
> recognise the flag anymore. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> > every gcc in portage by default supports -fno-stack-protector |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> So that includes gcc 4 then. Well that makes life easier. :-) |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> I presume it's a gentoo patch to gcc-4 to add back in |
| 22 |
> -fno-stack-protector? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
For the 4.0.x it should be just a dummy call. |
| 25 |
For 4.1 it is included. What does change and is really uncool with 4.1 |
| 26 |
is that -fno-stack-protector-all is missing and wont be added |
| 27 |
back without several somebodies making a case for it upstream. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
solar <solar@g.o> |
| 31 |
Gentoo Linux |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives