This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Weaken -fstack-protector configure test to a compile test

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012, Roland McGrath wrote:

> But one thing that comes to mind is if the old check might also have been
> verifying that GCC was not generating some external library call that is
> missing.

The trouble with that is that on platforms where external library 
references are involved, it's references to __stack_chk_* identifiers that 
the newly built glibc will definitely provide - and running a link test is 
testing the wrong, old glibc for whether those functions are present 
(although since the relevant symbol versions are GLIBC_2.4, it's not that 
likely that the previous libc will be old enough for that to cause a wrong 
result if there is a previous libc at all).

> Also, the old test actually compiled a function whereas now it's an empty
> input file.  So if there is some error/warning that only arises when the
> compiler actually has anything to do, we could be missing it.

I don't think that's an issue; these sorts of warnings for unsupported 
options are given at the end of option processing, without regard to 
whether there is anything for the compiler to do.

Joseph S. Myers

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]