On Wed, 16 Nov 2005, Richard Henderson wrote: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 09:01:21PM +0100, Peter S. Mazinger wrote: > > I meant exactly this, gcc supports -fno-stack-protector (although gcc > > defaults to no-ssp), so -fno-stack-protector-all should be there too > > Why? What option would it perform?
to have the possibility to override an earlier one, as it is done w/ many fno* options. Why should this one not have it's counterpart. Ex. gcc does not default to fomit-frame-pointer, but we have fno-omit-frame-pointer Peter -- Peter S. Mazinger <ps dot m at gmx dot net> ID: 0xA5F059F2 Key fingerprint = 92A4 31E1 56BC 3D5A 2D08 BB6E C389 975E A5F0 59F2
