| 1 |
On Wed, 2006-03-01 at 11:39 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wednesday 01 March 2006 10:35, Duncan Coutts wrote: |
| 3 |
> > gcc-3 supports both -nopie and -fno-stack-protector. So always using |
| 4 |
> > these would be ok if it were not for gcc-4 which doesn't grok |
| 5 |
> > -fno-stack-protector. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> yes it does |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Oh. I had reports from ppc devs who said that gcc-4 didn't recognise |
| 10 |
that flag. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I also heard that gcc-4 contains a re-written stack protector |
| 13 |
implementation with different semantics and that was why it didn't |
| 14 |
recognise the flag anymore. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> every gcc in portage by default supports -fno-stack-protector |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
So that includes gcc 4 then. Well that makes life easier. :-) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I presume it's a gentoo patch to gcc-4 to add back in |
| 21 |
-fno-stack-protector? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Duncan Coutts : Gentoo Developer (Haskell herd team lead) |
| 25 |
email : dcoutts at gentoo dot org |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives