On 2023-11-24 01:34 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Thu, 2023-11-23 at 10:45:33 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > it looks like enabling this flag on armel/armhf is a little bit premature.
> > In Ubuntu, people tracked down segfaults due to this change in at least
> > valgrind and gnutls, maybe
Hi,
Short introduction: I work at Canonical in the Foundations team and made
changes in gnutls which is one of the packages that first
encountered/caused issues which then started blocking various migrations
and changes.
On Fri, Nov 24, 2023, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 24.11.23 07:19, Emanuele
* Emanuele Rocca:
> Hello!
>
> On 2023-11-24 01:34, Guillem Jover wrote:
>> According to https://bugs.debian.org/918914#73 there were no pending
>> toolchain issues related to this.
>
> That is correct. The GCC maintainers at Arm confirm that
> stack-clash-protection is supported on 32 bit too.
On 24.11.23 07:19, Emanuele Rocca wrote:
Hello!
On 2023-11-24 01:34, Guillem Jover wrote:
According to https://bugs.debian.org/918914#73 there were no pending
toolchain issues related to this.
That is correct. The GCC maintainers at Arm confirm that
stack-clash-protection is supported on 32
4 matches
Mail list logo
