On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 06:31:11PM +0100, Michal Prívozník wrote: > On 1/30/24 18:04, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 05:36:03PM +0100, Peter Krempa wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 07:42:10 -0800, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > >>> Any chance either of you could look at the other patch[1] as well? > >>> The connection to alpha is sort of tangential in that case, what's > >>> more important is that we're currently not using -fstack-protector > >>> on aarch64 even though we should. > >> > >> IMO there you should post a version which just enables > >> -fstack-protector everywhere, as in ... drop the alpha hack. That one is > >> starting to go beyond the 'trivial' change. > > > > That's not my preference, clearly, but I'm okay doing that. > > > > While this patch is strictly necessary to make libvirt build > > successfully on alpha, the alpha-related part of the other one only > > removes a number of annoying, but ultimately harmless warnings. > > > > One last chance for someone to ACK that patch as-is. If not, I'll > > cave in and post an updated, alpha-free version :) > > While one could argue that this check-symfile.py patch is: a) trivial, > b) useful for other arches than just alpha (possibly, in case linker > decides to put memory into different places like S or G), it's hard to > use the same argument for -fstack-protector IMO. Heard. v2 posted. -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
