On 8/2/19 11:09 AM, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 01/08/2019 19:28, Steven A. Falco wrote: >> The upstream KiCAD project has requested that I remove GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS >> from the Fedora package, as described here: >> https://bugs.launchpad.net/kicad/+bug/1838448 >> >> What is the best way to do that? I can add "%undefine _hardened_build" >> (which I am testing now) but I think that will remove other hardening >> features that I might want to leave enabled. > > Well you just need to add -U_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS to the end of the > compiler flags. > > But I think upstream is giving very bad advice... > > That define does not "add extra crashes" in the way that they > seem to think - well I mean it does literally but those crashes > are reports of program errors on their part. > > Specifically in this case they appear to be accessing a > std::vector at an index beyond the end, so they are accessing > memory that may not be allocated at all, and if it is does > not belong to the vector in question. So the program is quite > likely to crash there one day anyway, the extra assertion just > makes sure it always does.
I agree that it sounds like bad advice, and I've raised that exact issue in comment #22 (https://bugs.launchpad.net/kicad/+bug/1838448/comments/22). We'll see if I can convince upstream to rethink this. Steve _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
