On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 16:12:15 PDT, David Miller said: > Your gcc-4.1.1 includes the -fstack-protector feature, but it might > not have the gcc bug fix necessary to make that feature work on the > kernel compile, which is why the version check is necessary. Whee. A busticated feature - how annoying. Do you happen to know the exact PR# for that one? Looking at the gcc RPM changelog, there's a *lot* of backported fixes in the Fedora compiler, so it may in fact be in there already. I'm mentioning this mostly as a practical "increase the number of testers" - as far as I can tell, what will ship in Fedora Core 6 is going to call itself gcc 4.1.1, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person who isn't ambitious enough to build a whole new gcc just to test this. So a lot of people won't be able to easily use this until FC7. Having said that, I have *no* idea how best to code "gcc 4.2 or patched Fedora 4.1.1"...
Attachment:
pgpCS63x2F6yH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [patch 5/5] Add the -fstack-protector option to the CFLAGS
- From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 5/5] Add the -fstack-protector option to the CFLAGS
- References:
- Re: [patch 5/5] Add the -fstack-protector option to the CFLAGS
- From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 5/5] Add the -fstack-protector option to the CFLAGS
- From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 5/5] Add the -fstack-protector option to the CFLAGS
- From: [email protected]
- Re: [patch 5/5] Add the -fstack-protector option to the CFLAGS
- From: David Miller <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 5/5] Add the -fstack-protector option to the CFLAGS
- Prev by Date: Re: [stable] 2.6.17.[1-6] XFS Filesystem Corruption, Where is 2.6.17.7?
- Next by Date: Re: [KJ] audit return code handling for kernel_thread [1/11]
- Previous by thread: Re: [patch 5/5] Add the -fstack-protector option to the CFLAGS
- Next by thread: Re: [patch 5/5] Add the -fstack-protector option to the CFLAGS
- Index(es):
 |