On 10/12/2014 02:03 PM, Dan Douglas wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Anthony G. Basile <bluen...@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
>> --- toolchain-funcs.eclass.orig 2014-10-12 11:23:41.585182742 -0400
>> +++ toolchain-funcs.eclass 2014-10-12 11:31:57.170205300 -0400
>> @@ -610,6 +610,12 @@
>> directive=$(gcc-specs-directive cc1)
>> return $([[ "${directive/\{!fstrict-overflow:}" != "${directive}" ]])
>> }
>> +# Returns true if gcc builds with fstack-check
>> +gcc-specs-stack-check() {
>> + local directive
>> + directive=$(gcc-specs-directive cc1)
>> + return $([[ "${directive/\{!fno-stack-check:}" != "${directive}" ]])
>> +}
>
> Am I missing something here? I don't see how any of the tests used in
> gcc-specs-* functions could possibly produce an output. The fact that this
> coincidentally works in Bash shouldn't be relied upon.
>
<hat=QA>Portage specifically relies on and uses Bash. There is no
coincidence that we have a dep on bash, directly call bash (instead of
sh) and use things that don't necessarily work in other shells. This is
permitted and correct. </hat>-Zero_Chaos
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
