Hi Borislav, Borislav Petkov <b...@suse.de> writes:
> Hi, > > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:00:21PM +0200, Dirk Gouders wrote: >> CFLAGS = -ggdb3 -Wall -Wextra -std=gnu99 -Werror -O6 -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE >> -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 $(EXTRA_WARNINGS) $(EXTRA_CFLAGS) -fPIC > > it seems someone else hit this already and fixed it too: > > commit d2f32479e5526a1ab3b4e43910fcb279871524ce > Author: Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slus...@gmail.com> > Date: Sun Feb 17 16:03:36 2013 +0100 > > perf tools: check if -DFORTIFY_SOURCE=2 is allowed I thought about this _FORTIFY_SOURCE test and how the above commit could/should be adopted to lib/lk/Makefile, and I thought that if it were true that recent versions of gcc define _FORTIFY_SOURCE by default, that test could probably be modified and just check gcc's builtin macros to find out if _FORTIFY_SOURCE has to be defined explicitely and I tried to find out when gcc started to use _FORTIFY_SOURCE builtin definitions... In short: all what I said in my initial post was tested with gcc versions on gentoo machines and it is gentoo that patches gcc so that _FORTIFY_SOURCE becomes a builtin definition. Unfortunately I don't have access to machines running other distributions and can only report about gcc on gentoo, but even with this limited information I would say it depends on the distribution in use if -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 is needed and not on the gcc version. Sorry for the noise if you already noticed my fault, I felt I should correct my initial misleading information. Dirk -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
