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