On 7/1/06, H. Peter Anvin <[email protected]> wrote:
Sam Ravnborg wrote: > >> -KLIBCREQFLAGS := >> +KLIBCREQFLAGS := $(call cc_option, -fno-stack-protector, ) > > This needs to be $(call cc-option, ...) > '-' not '_'. > *plonk* OK... I feel dumb now :) Miles: could you try this out? >> +++ b/usr/klibc/arch/arm/MCONFIG >> @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ CPU_TUNE := strongarm >> >> KLIBCOPTFLAGS = -Os -march=$(CPU_ARCH) -mtune=$(CPU_TUNE) >> KLIBCBITSIZE = 32 >> -KLIBCREQFLAGS = -fno-exceptions >> +KLIBCREQFLAGS += -fno-exceptions > > This should be fixed for KLIBCOPTFLAGS also. Unrelated to this issue. > *Nod.*
I gave it my best shot, but my build is still unhappy.
I set:
KLIBCREQFLAGS := $(call cc-option, -fno-stack-protector, )
in scripts/Kbuild.klibc.
KLIBCOPTFLAGS = -march=i386 -Os -g -fomit-frame-pointer
$(gcc_align_option) $(call cc-option, -fno-stack-protector, )
in usr/klibc/arch/i386/MCONFIG
CFLAGS := -Wall -Wundef -Wstrict-prototypes -Wno-trigraphs \
$(call cc-option, -fno-stack-protector, ) -fno-common
in Makefile.
Trying to compile, I get:
include/asm/system.h: In function '__set_64bit_var':
include/asm/system.h:209: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer
will break strict-aliasing rules
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- 2.6.17-mm5 -- Busted toolchain? -- usr/klibc/exec_l.c:59: undefined reference to `__stack_chk_fail'
- From: "Miles Lane" <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.17-mm5 -- Busted toolchain? -- usr/klibc/exec_l.c:59: undefined reference to `__stack_chk_fail'
- From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.17-mm5 -- Busted toolchain? -- usr/klibc/exec_l.c:59: undefined reference to `__stack_chk_fail'
- From: "Miles Lane" <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.17-mm5 -- Busted toolchain? -- usr/klibc/exec_l.c:59: undefined reference to `__stack_chk_fail'
- From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.17-mm5 -- Busted toolchain? -- usr/klibc/exec_l.c:59: undefined reference to `__stack_chk_fail'
- From: "Miles Lane" <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.17-mm5 -- Busted toolchain? -- usr/klibc/exec_l.c:59: undefined reference to `__stack_chk_fail'
- From: "Miles Lane" <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.17-mm5 -- Busted toolchain? -- usr/klibc/exec_l.c:59: undefined reference to `__stack_chk_fail'
- From: Sam Ravnborg <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.17-mm5 -- Busted toolchain? -- usr/klibc/exec_l.c:59: undefined reference to `__stack_chk_fail'
- From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.17-mm5 -- Busted toolchain? -- usr/klibc/exec_l.c:59: undefined reference to `__stack_chk_fail'
- From: Sam Ravnborg <[email protected]>
- Re: 2.6.17-mm5 -- Busted toolchain? -- usr/klibc/exec_l.c:59: undefined reference to `__stack_chk_fail'
- From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>
- 2.6.17-mm5 -- Busted toolchain? -- usr/klibc/exec_l.c:59: undefined reference to `__stack_chk_fail'
- Prev by Date: Re: 2.6.17-mm5 dislikes raid-1, just like mm4
- Next by Date: Re: 2.6.17-mm5 -- Busted toolchain? -- usr/klibc/exec_l.c:59: undefined reference to `__stack_chk_fail'
- Previous by thread: Re: 2.6.17-mm5 -- Busted toolchain? -- usr/klibc/exec_l.c:59: undefined reference to `__stack_chk_fail'
- Next by thread: Re: 2.6.17-mm5 -- Busted toolchain? -- usr/klibc/exec_l.c:59: undefined reference to `__stack_chk_fail'
- Index(es):
 |