This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH 01/12] Configury support for --enable-stack-protector.
- From: Nix <nix at esperi dot org dot uk>
- To: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, <carlos at redhat dot com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 21:23:14 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/12] Configury support for --enable-stack-protector.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1455963826-21885-1-git-send-email-nix at esperi dot org dot uk> <1455963826-21885-2-git-send-email-nix at esperi dot org dot uk> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1602201729590 dot 7140 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <8737sln19y dot fsf at esperi dot org dot uk> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1602221802180 dot 2643 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
On 22 Feb 2016, Joseph Myers outgrape:
> On Sun, 21 Feb 2016, Nix wrote:
>> On 20 Feb 2016, Joseph Myers spake thusly:
>> > Any patch adding a new configure option should also document it in
>> > install.texi and regenerate INSTALL.
>> Like this? (Assuming that using multiple @items in succession like that
>> is sensible. If there's a better way to delineate possible options in a
>> way that the reader can match up with the -fstack-protector options
>> described below, please susgest it.)
> You should use @itemx for the second and subsequent entries in such a
Aha, thank you. Adjusted, will be in the next series.
>> (I haven't included the INSTALL regeneration here, because when I try to
>> do it I end up with half of INSTALL getting re-word-wrapped, with
>> massive numbers of spurious changes that have nothing to do with the
>> stanza I've added. Is a particular version of texinfo required for this
>> to work?)
> Carlos recently changed <https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Regeneration>
> to say texinfo 6.0 (but it was the change from 4 to 5 that caused big
> changes in the output).
Useful wiki page, thanks. I'll regenerate with 6.0 in the next series.
(I presume you want configure regenerated as well -- it looks like the
page is out of date, since that's clearly being generated with 2.69 at
present, but the page says 2.68.)
NULL && (void)