Am 11.03.2009 11:52, schrieb Carl-Daniel Hailfinger: >> All of them: >> Signed-off-by: Patrick Georgi <[email protected]> >> >> > > AFAICS --scan-build and --nostackprotect can be specified at the same > time, interacting badly. > That's possible. The nostackprotect change happens to enable nostackprotect with crosscompilers (without it, the crosscompiler test overwrites CC)
In the code, first -fno-stack-protector gets added, then it's pushed into the wrapper script (also necessary for "gcc -m32"), as scan-build doesn't like CC="gcc -arguments". That really looks like it's doing the right thing. I tried a build right now, and it seems to work. (but on that system, nostackprotect doesn't fix otherwise broken builds) > Should we name the parameter "scan-build" or "scanbuild"? > I chose scan-build because that's what the tool is called. On the other hand, --nostackprotect strips the "-", too. I honestly have no opinion on that :-) > If the two points above are resolved, the whole patchset is > Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <[email protected]> > Thanks. I'll wait a bit for more opinions on the parameter name, but as the short name stays stable, changing the long version later-on shouldn't be too much of a problem. Regards, Patrick
-- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
