On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 12:15 AM Kevin Kofler via devel <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > (In particular, I doubt the _FORTIFY_SOURCE=3 change was really a major > > consideration here.) > > What was, then? That was literally the only thing that has changed between > the two diametrically different votes. Speaking for myself, the only way in which the _FORTIFY_SOURCE change impacted my opinion on -fno-omit-frame-pointers is that it made me think about it again, and that the level of scrutiny myself - and other members of FESCo - had given that change, had been disproportionate. And you might like it or not, I had just changed my mind on the topic since we had the first vote. At that point, the only thing that could have convinced me to *not* to vote for enabling frame pointers would have been substantial arguments *against* the change from the toolchain team (and by substantial I mean something more than "the team is against it", "we don't like it", or "it's going to have a small performance impact"). Given that there had been *months* for people to speak up, the likelihood of any such arguments materializing at the last minute is pretty small (and even then, the change could have been reverted between approval and mass rebuild, if necessary). Fabio _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
