| 1 |
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 18:41:34 -0400 |
| 2 |
Richard Yao <ryao@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> A few thoughts: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> 1. The kernel expects -fno-stack-protector to be the default. What will |
| 7 |
> the effect be on kernel configuration once -fstack-protector is the default? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
The kernel has supported building with -fstack-protector since 2.6.19, (at least |
| 10 |
on x86/x86-64). It's controlled by CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR and if it's |
| 11 |
disabled then -fno-stack-protector is explicitly added to the command line. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> 2. We should make sure that -fno-stack-protector is a supported CFLAG. |
| 14 |
> This will make it easier to handle complaints from the vocal minority of |
| 15 |
> our user base that want every last percentage point of performance. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
If by supported you mean that they won't be removed by things like strip-flags, |
| 18 |
then yes, -fstack-protector -fstack-protector-all -fno-stack-protector and |
| 19 |
-fno-stack-protector-all are all on the whitelist. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> 3. I would like to point out that we are talking about deviating from |
| 22 |
> upstream behavior and everyone is okay with it. Anyone who thinks we |
| 23 |
> should stick to upstream when it is not good for us should speak now or |
| 24 |
> risk being asked "where were you when..." whenever they try to use |
| 25 |
> upstream as an excuse to hold back progress. ;) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
In this case it seems every other distro is already doing this, so we're in |
| 28 |
good company. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Ryan Hill psn: dirtyepic_sk |
| 33 |
gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463 |
Archives