| 1 |
klondike wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
>> Apologies for replying to my own post, but I just realised that you |
| 4 |
>> were posing the question in the context of klondike's blog post. I do |
| 5 |
>> not know what the status of SSP is in the overlays and/or experimental |
| 6 |
>> toolchains so I'll bow out and leave it to one of the toolchain gurus |
| 7 |
>> to provide a credible response. My answer applies to the gcc ebuild in |
| 8 |
>> the mainline tree. |
| 9 |
> Although I may be wrong, AFAIK SSP works nice with almost anything |
| 10 |
> except libstdc++, also packages which need it to be disabled (ie |
| 11 |
> thunderbird) usually do it without a problem of after pattching a bit |
| 12 |
> the ebuild. Anyway, I think the best one to answer is Zorry or Xake as |
| 13 |
> they maintain it. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
So the Xake overlay is GCC 4.3.2 with the GCC 4 SSP enabled? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
My limited understanding is that the GCC 4 (new) SSP implementation |
| 18 |
should be relatively benign and supported already by a modern toolchain |
| 19 |
with no further patches? I would naively assume that since Redhat (and |
| 20 |
others) seem to be building their distros with it turned on that most |
| 21 |
packages would already be largely patched upstream to cope with it? |
| 22 |
(certainly I am more interested in server packages than desktop packages) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> Anyway, at least on the overlay uclibc is still not supported :( |
| 25 |
> http://github.com/Xake/toolchain-overlay/blob/54581c25b74be5a5dc3d8c1de61dba55db7c639f/README |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Does Xake hang out here? Curious as to what the issues will be found in |
| 29 |
uclibc. I'm not specially tied to uclibc, just that it seems to work |
| 30 |
nicely so far and I'm not desperately tight on drive space... |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Ed W |
Archives