| 1 |
On Tuesday, September 28, 2010 20:33:52 Ryan Hill wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 11:43:28 +0200 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: |
| 3 |
> > since the last time I asked Zac about this it came back to bite me[1] |
| 4 |
> > this time I'm going to send the announce to the list first, and if |
| 5 |
> > nobody can actually come up with a good reason not to, I'm going to ask |
| 6 |
> > Zac tomorrow to re-enable the feature. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> "Tomorrow" isn't much of a warning. Can you please give people a chance to |
| 9 |
> fix the bugs you've filed? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Something I forgot to ask before: are the 'always overflow' warnings new |
| 12 |
> w/ GCC 4.5 / glibc 2.12? If they're new w/ 4.5 then we don't have a |
| 13 |
> problem. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
the fortify warnings typically come from glibc, not gcc. i dont believe many |
| 16 |
of these warnings are new. the portage update i posted was because i was |
| 17 |
reviewing a specific package, noticed a worrisome warning (and fixed it), and |
| 18 |
then proceeded to data mine the last years worth of build logs on my system |
| 19 |
for gcc warnings. |
| 20 |
-mike |
Archives