* Jiri Olsa <jo...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 01:56:29PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
> > -FEATURE_TESTS = \
> > - hello \
> > - stackprotector-all \
> > - stackprotector \
> > - volatile-register-var \
> > +#
> > +# Note that this is not a complete list of all feature tests, just
> > +# those that are typically built on a fully configured system.
> > +#
> > +# [ Feature tests not mentioned here have to be built explicitly in
> > +# the rule that uses them - an example for that is the 'bionic'
> > +# feature check. ]
> > +#
> > +CORE_FEATURE_TESTS = \
> > + backtrace \
> > + dwarf \
> > fortify-source \
> > - bionic \
> > - libelf \
> > glibc \
> > - dwarf \
> > - libelf-mmap \
> > - libelf-getphdrnum \
> > - libunwind \
> > - libaudit \
> > - libslang \
> > gtk2 \
> > gtk2-infobar \
> > + libaudit \
> > + libbfd \
> > + libelf \
> > + libelf-getphdrnum \
> > + libelf-mmap \
> > + libnuma \
> > libperl \
> > libpython \
> > libpython-version \
> > - libbfd \
> > + libslang \
> > + libunwind \
> > on-exit \
> > - backtrace \
> > - libnuma
> > + stackprotector-all \
>
> missing stackprotector?
Thanks, fixed.
Btw., this was amazing of you to find during review, from such a
supposedly identity transformation patch! :)
> I guess that various gcc version could support either
> of them or both.. so we need to check for both
>
> looks like -fstack-protector-all overloads -fstack-protector
> but no harm to have them both added probably ;-)
Yeah, both checks were there originally and it was an oversight from me
to have only stackprotector-all in the final result.
(Had I left it out intentionally it would have been either a separate
patch, or at least would have earned a mention in the changelog.)
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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/
