| 1 |
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 19:28:53 -0500 |
| 2 |
Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Thursday 19 January 2006 18:52, Mark Loeser wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Please lets avoid this assumption. I'd love to make it so we never |
| 6 |
> > make this assumption anywhere in the tree so that we could actually |
| 7 |
> > build GCC without pie or ssp, instead of generating all of the GCC |
| 8 |
> > profiles for every user. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
SPLIT_SPECS="no" in make.conf causes just the profile default to be |
| 11 |
built - is that good enough? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> pie is in upstream gcc so your argument here is INVALID |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
and -fno-stack-protector is only a problem if gcc-4.0 is built without |
| 16 |
the ssp-stubs - from 4.1 onwards that'll be upstream as well. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Having said that, I don't think we need -fno-stack-protector in default |
| 19 |
DEBUG_FLAGS anyway, as it doesn't inhibit debug (unlike -Wl,pie). |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Kevin F. Quinn |
Archives