This is the mail archive of the
glibc-bugs@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
[Bug libc/13979] A warning should be issued if FORTIFY_SOURCE is requested but not enabled
- From: "anatol.pomozov at gmail dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla at sourceware dot org>
- To: glibc-bugs at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 00:08:30 +0000
- Subject: [Bug libc/13979] A warning should be issued if FORTIFY_SOURCE is requested but not enabled
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-13979-131 at http dot sourceware dot org/bugzilla/>
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13979
Anatol Pomozov <anatol.pomozov at gmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |anatol.pomozov at gmail dot com
--- Comment #7 from Anatol Pomozov <anatol.pomozov at gmail dot com> ---
Linux Arch still suffers from warnings flood produced by this code.
We have following disto-wide compilation variables:
CPPFLAGS="-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2"
CFLAGS="-march=x86-64 -mtune=generic -O2 -pipe -fstack-protector
--param=ssp-buffer-size=4"
and compilation produces a lot of warnings in almost any c++ project:
/usr/include/features.h:328:4: warning: #warning _FORTIFY_SOURCE
requires compiling with optimization (-O) [-Wcpp]
# warning _FORTIFY_SOURCE requires compiling with optimization (-O)
What is the action item for us, downstream package maintainers? What we suppose
to do? There were several proposals (see link to autoconf discussion above):
- revert commit 05c2c9618f5
- move _FORTIFY_SOURCE to CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS/..
- move -O2 to CPPFLAGS
Could you please give us advice on what solution is the best one.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.