On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:29 AM Masahiro Yamada
<yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I cannot come up with a name better than CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG.
How about just calling it STACKPROTETOR_STRONG and leaving it at that?
Make the "CC_HAVE_xyz" model for compiler feature tests, but when
actually picking an actual option, it's not really about the compiler
any more, except in the sense that it depends on it.
I guess we could leave the CC_STACKPROTECTOR option as-is, just
because it apparently has a lot of small uses in actual code too, but
there is absolutely nothing that uses CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG
outside of the actual compiler option choice (and config files)
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
