* Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > * 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? Mind resending the patch against latest -tip? http://people.redhat.com/mingo/tip.git/README There's been other changes in this area so your patch does not apply anymore. 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
