> On Nov. 2, 2016, 9:32 a.m., Benjamin Bannier wrote: > > 3rdparty/libprocess/m4/ax_check_compile_flag.m4, line 1 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/52695/diff/4/?file=1551008#file1551008line1> > > > > For future updates it would be great if we'd write down the > > autoconf-archive release this file came from (it looks like the latest > > release containing it is `v2016.09.16`).
I don't see any of the other macros having this information. Would you just prefer a comment at the very top indicating the release? I took this from HEAD a few weeks back from this location http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=autoconf-archive.git;a=blob_plain;f=m4/ax_check_compile_flag.m4 How can you tell it's from `v2016.09.16`? - Aaron ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/52695/#review154527 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Nov. 2, 2016, 3:14 p.m., Aaron Wood wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/52695/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Nov. 2, 2016, 3:14 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, James Peach, Michael Park, and Neil Conway. > > > Bugs: MESOS-6229 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-6229 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Use a default set of flags to provide additional security and hardening to > libprocess. Additionally, check and catch more warnings/errors. > > > Diffs > ----- > > 3rdparty/libprocess/Makefile.am 7131989 > 3rdparty/libprocess/configure.ac 1644035 > 3rdparty/libprocess/m4/ax_check_compile_flag.m4 PRE-CREATION > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/52695/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Compared the benchmarks with and without the flags being used. Also did a > comparsion with the flags being used with and without optimizations and > without the flags being used with and without optimizations. Overall the > performance hit was very small with a 3-8% overhead (optimizations brings > this down slightly). Most benchmarks were about 5% (or less) slower. > > > File Attachments > ---------------- > > --enable-optimized with hardening applied > > https://reviews.apache.org/media/uploaded/files/2016/11/02/875c9e6e-c73b-4e3c-8265-0f7c6dc00351__hardened-optimized.txt > Hardening applied but no --enable-optimized > > https://reviews.apache.org/media/uploaded/files/2016/11/02/932d28a7-2d31-471a-b438-647841a6853c__hardened-unoptimized.txt > --enable-optimized with no hardening applied > > https://reviews.apache.org/media/uploaded/files/2016/11/02/896944ea-9b31-4d62-b1b9-97fb4700a882__optimized.txt > No hardening applied and no --enable-optimized > > https://reviews.apache.org/media/uploaded/files/2016/11/02/b32667ce-3e3b-4d2b-b4f8-4c2404a0fc1c__unoptimized.txt > > > Thanks, > > Aaron Wood > >
