Re: Hardened builds

2015-03-07 Thread Jerry James
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Moez Roy wrote: > Can you post a link here for that gcc regression bug? Thanks. There is no regression. The source code invoked undefined behavior. Under such circumstances, the compiler is free to do anything at all. Things just happened to work out right with g

Re: Hardened builds

2015-03-07 Thread Moez Roy
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Jerry James wrote: > > Oops, sorry, got distracted. It is polymake. That package has > multiple problems. > > First, it invokes undefined behavior in one bit of code. That > happened to work out with gcc 4.x, but gcc 5.x compiles the code a bit > differently, res

Re: Hardened builds

2015-03-06 Thread Jerry James
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Rex Dieter wrote: > which package is this again? I can try experimenting a bit. > > The one that worked for me was lightdm, fwiw. Oops, sorry, got distracted. It is polymake. That package has multiple problems. First, it invokes undefined behavior in one bit

Re: Hardened builds

2015-03-06 Thread Michael Cronenworth
On 02/24/2015 06:44 PM, Jerry James wrote: How is this really supposed to be done? If I'm doing it the right way, then the current method is broken. %undefine _hardened_build -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Cod

Re: Hardened builds

2015-02-28 Thread Christopher Meng
On Saturday, February 28, 2015, Till Maas wrote: > > I am going to get this updated once the mass rebuild is done and I got > the details worked out about what to do best, for example for allowing > exceptions from this. You gonna allow many exceptions as some packages on x86_64 failed to build.

Re: Hardened builds

2015-02-27 Thread Till Maas
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 05:44:18PM -0700, Jerry James wrote: > Also, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Hardened_Packages seems to be > entirely useless at this point. Perhaps it could be replaced with a > page that discusses the current state of the hardening flags. I am going to get this updated on

Re: Hardened builds

2015-02-26 Thread Rex Dieter
Jerry James wrote: > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Rex Dieter wrote: >> Mamoru TASAKA wrote: >>> Does >>> %undefine _hardened_build >>> help? >> >> that version works for me > > Hmmm, am I doing something wrong? I've tried both: > > %undefine _hardened_build > > and: > > %undefine _harden

Re: Hardened builds

2015-02-25 Thread Jerry James
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Rex Dieter wrote: > Mamoru TASAKA wrote: >> Does >> %undefine _hardened_build >> help? > > that version works for me Hmmm, am I doing something wrong? I've tried both: %undefine _hardened_build and: %undefine _hardened_build %global _hardened_build 0 at the t

RE: Hardened builds

2015-02-25 Thread Rex Dieter
Mamoru TASAKA wrote: > Hello: > >> I've got a package that is currently failing to build in Rawhide. It >> has a home-brewed garbage collector inside, and it appears the GC is >> confused about which objects are on the stack, and which are on the >> heap. I want to try building without the hard

Re: Hardened builds

2015-02-24 Thread Jerry James
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Mamoru TASAKA wrote: > Does > %undefine _hardened_build > help? Thanks for the suggestion, but regrettably, now %configure does this: checking C++ compiler ... ok (g++ is GCC 5.0) determining architecture ... ok (x86_64) determining compiler flags ... ok CFLAG

RE: Hardened builds

2015-02-24 Thread Mamoru TASAKA
Hello: > I've got a package that is currently failing to build in Rawhide. It > has a home-brewed garbage collector inside, and it appears the GC is > confused about which objects are on the stack, and which are on the > heap. I want to try building without the hardening flags to see if > that h