* Michael Cree <mcree@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Should be done not by removing the stack-protector build > > unconditionally - but by auto-testing whether stackprotector is > > supported by GCC and using it if yes. > > Revised patch attached. It includes a test that the compiler doesn't > bomb out with -fstack-protector-all and only adds the option to CFLAGS > if ok. But I have had to put the test below the definition of the > macro CC. This has the side effect of separating the addition of > -fstack-protector-all from the main definitions of CFLAGS and > ALL_CFLAGS, and is not ideal in my opinion. The patch also removes > -Wcast-align (I forgot to say that in the commit message of the > patch). Nice, i'll queue this up for Linus. Your S-O-B line was missing from this second patch - i presume you intended it to be included, right? Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-alpha" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
