1 |
On Thu, 2004-05-06 at 14:35, Ned Ludd wrote: |
2 |
> On Thu, 2004-05-06 at 08:31, Ed Wildgoose wrote: |
3 |
> > Aaron Walker wrote: |
4 |
> > |
5 |
> > >I noticed that after upgrading to gcc-3.3.3-r3, while emerging things, I |
6 |
> > >get lots of "-pie: unrecognized option" messages. |
7 |
> > > |
8 |
> > >Has the use of -pie in LDFLAGS been deprecated? If so, in favor of |
9 |
> > >what? |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Yes.. |
12 |
> It's been deprecated in favor of gcc patches and proper documentation. |
13 |
> 3/4 of which is still pending. |
14 |
|
15 |
Based on some recent questions I've gotten on irc.gentoo.org it |
16 |
sounds like I need to clear up some confusion for some people. |
17 |
CFLAGS/LDFLAGS still work. They will just be far less supported over |
18 |
using gcc spec modifications. Reason for this is many Makefile's toss |
19 |
out or can't cope with user supplied LDFLAGS such as apache2 or quite |
20 |
simply need more logic of when to enable/disable PIE & SSP etc.. But |
21 |
rest assured that the flags do work from gcc/binutils. |
22 |
|
23 |
> |
24 |
> Anybody love to document things? :) |
25 |
> |
26 |
> > > |
27 |
> > > |
28 |
> > |
29 |
> > I believe that with gcc3.3.3-r2 onwards you just need the USE="hardened" |
30 |
> > flag to get the old behaviour... I asked a similar question a few days |
31 |
> > back if you want to check the archives. |
32 |
> > |
33 |
> > Perhaps someone who knows what they are talking about could positively |
34 |
> > confirm this though! |
35 |
> |
36 |
> I'll confirm for you that -r4 will be the desired gcc to use as soon as |
37 |
> I make some changes. -r3 has some undesirable bugs which are fixed in |
38 |
> the -* masked -r4. |
39 |
> However the -r4 has it's own unique set of problems with |
40 |
> some patch offsets that are not playing along unless USE=uclibc is set. |
41 |
> |
42 |
> In short.. Give it a week. I've got other things on my plate like trying |
43 |
> to raise funds to feed myself which must take priority and thus I can't |
44 |
> dive into gcc right away. |
45 |
> |
46 |
> > Ed W |
47 |
> > |
48 |
> > -- |
49 |
> > gentoo-hardened@g.o mailing list |
50 |
|
51 |
-- |
52 |
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> |
53 |
Gentoo (hardened,security,infrastructure,embedded,toolchain) Developer |