On Tuesday 30 January 2007 18:48, Ville Skyttä wrote: > On Tuesday 30 January 2007 16:31, Till Maas wrote: > > On Monday 29 January 2007 22:06, Ville Skyttä wrote: > > > > What about -fomit-frame-pointer and -O3, that maybe breaks debuginfo, > > too: > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-July/msg00712.htm > >l > > That would be a good addition to the Wiki page, but: does -O3 break it > alone, or with -fomit-frame-pointer, or is it just -fomit-frame-pointer? > What about other flags that could result in the same? gcc man page: | -fomit-frame-pointer | Don’t keep the frame pointer in a register for functions that | don’t need one. This avoids the instructions to save, set up and | restore frame pointers; it also makes an extra register available | in many functions. It also makes debugging impossible on some | machines. I don't really know whether or not -O3 breaks it but when I used gentoo I read that some applications may break when using -O3, but better ask someone who knows this. :-) > > > no sources is also quite likely not honoring $RPM_OPT_FLAGS, and if so, > > > also very likely to have been built without compiler generated security > > > > Do $RPM_OPT_FLAGS need to be used in LDFLAGS, too? > > I don't think I've ever seen it being used there. FWIW, unlike > CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS/FFLAGS, %configure doesn't set LDFLAGS at all. I do not really understand autoconf but it seems to me that LDFLAGS are created using CFLAGS, e.g. in beryl-core: | gcc -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 [...] -o .libs/beryl main.o | privates.o [...] line 633 in http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-6-extras/26630-beryl-core-0.1.99.2-1.fc6/i386/build.log > > What to do then? I once filled a bug about this for qemu and it was > > closed with WONTFIX: > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208026 > > Maybe ask the maintainer to explain why the chosen flags are more important > than working -debuginfo, and if they really are, why the packager is > knowingly shipping a useless -debuginfo instead of explicitly disabling it > (with a comment explaining why) in the specfile? Or forward to an > appropriate committee to decide if there's no consensus? It's speed vs security/debugging, afaik applications compiled with -fomit-frame-pointer are (slightly?) faster that compiled without it and I guess the security features slow down applications, too. I guess there is not much to discuss, either speed or security/debugging is more important. What would be the appropriate committee? fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx? Regards, Till -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
