Re: [patch 2/5] Add the Kconfig option for the stackprotector feature

> After reading this thread, I do understand why you write once 
> "GCC version 4.1" and once "gcc version 4.2".
> 
> But for the normal user this will be quite confusing.

Yes it's a mess.

> What about simply removing the first sentence of the help text since 
> it's anyway handled by the NOTE?

It should be obsolete with autoprobing for the feature as earlier discussed.

-Andi
-
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:
  • Re: [patch 2/5] Add the Kconfig option for the stackprotector feature
    • From: Adrian Bunk <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [patch 2/5] Add the Kconfig option for the stackprotector feature
    • From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 2/5] Add the Kconfig option for the stackprotector feature
    • From: Adrian Bunk <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Building the kernel on an SMP box?
• Next by Date: Re: [patch 2/5] Add the Kconfig option for the stackprotector feature
• Previous by thread: Re: [patch 2/5] Add the Kconfig option for the stackprotector feature
• Next by thread: Re: [patch 2/5] Add the Kconfig option for the stackprotector feature
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]