On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 1:17 AM, Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org wrote:
Our distribution packages are compiled with:
CPPFLAGS=-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
CFLAGS=-march=x86-64 -mtune=generic -O2 -pipe -fstack-protector
--param=ssp-buffer-size=4
So when both CPPFLAGS and CFLAGS are passed there is no
On 05/08/2013 07:00 AM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
I think the quick fix from your end is to move -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE to
CFLAGS (and presumably also CXXFLAGS).
Another possibility is to append -O2 to CPPFLAGS. The point is that
-O2 should always be used if -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE is.
I note that Debian
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Paul Eggert egg...@cs.ucla.edu wrote:
On 05/08/2013 07:00 AM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
I note that Debian has patched this warning out of their (just now
appeared in unstable) glibc 2.17.
Sounds like a win to me. Maybe I should file a glibc bug report
On Wednesday 08 May 2013 01:01:06 Paul Eggert wrote:
On 05/07/2013 08:49 PM, Anatol Pomozov wrote:
recent versions of glibc produces a
warning when it compiles apps with _FORTIFY_SOURCE but without -O2
That's a real problem, which will break lots of things.
i complained when the change
On 05/08/2013 04:00 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 1:17 AM, Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org wrote:
Our distribution packages are compiled with:
CPPFLAGS=-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
CFLAGS=-march=x86-64 -mtune=generic -O2 -pipe -fstack-protector
--param=ssp-buffer-size=4
So when both
Hi
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote:
On 05/08/2013 04:00 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 1:17 AM, Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org wrote:
Our distribution packages are compiled with:
CPPFLAGS=-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
On 05/08/13 11:26, Anatol Pomozov wrote:
Why autoconf uses CPPFLAGS
(and not CPPFLAGS+CXXFLAGS) for headers discovery?
It's a long story, but basically autoconf used to invoke
just the preprocessor to test for header existence, partly
on the grounds of making 'configure' go faster. That turns
On 09/05/13 07:11, Paul Eggert wrote:
On 05/08/13 11:26, Anatol Pomozov wrote:
Why autoconf uses CPPFLAGS
(and not CPPFLAGS+CXXFLAGS) for headers discovery?
It's a long story, but basically autoconf used to invoke
just the preprocessor to test for header existence, partly
on the grounds of
On 05/08/2013 09:19 PM, Allan McRae wrote:
I believe autoconf uses CPP CPPFLAGS to detect headers mainly because
of -I flags needing to be considered. Would an acceptable solution at
the autoconf level be to split the CPPFLAGS into -I flags and others
(-D, -U) and just use the -I ones in the
On 05/08/2013 08:19 PM, Allan McRae wrote:
Would an acceptable solution at
the autoconf level be to split the CPPFLAGS into -I flags and others
(-D, -U) and just use the -I ones in the header test?
I don't think so, no. -D and -U can affect whether cpp works.
On 09/05/13 13:36, Eric Blake wrote:
On 05/08/2013 09:19 PM, Allan McRae wrote:
I believe autoconf uses CPP CPPFLAGS to detect headers mainly because
of -I flags needing to be considered. Would an acceptable solution at
the autoconf level be to split the CPPFLAGS into -I flags and others
11 matches
Mail list logo
