Dear Mike Frysinger,
In message <1303754800-14317-1-git-send-email-vap...@gentoo.org> you wrote:
> Some toolchains enable security warning flags by default, but these don't
> really make sense in the u-boot world. Such as forcing changes like:
> -printf(foo);
> +printf("%s", foo);
>
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 15:16, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote on 2011/04/25 20:06:40:
>> Some toolchains enable security warning flags by default, but these don't
>> really make sense in the u-boot world. Such as forcing changes like:
>> -printf(foo);
>> +printf("%s", foo);
>
Mike Frysinger wrote on 2011/04/25 20:06:40:
>
> Some toolchains enable security warning flags by default, but these don't
> really make sense in the u-boot world. Such as forcing changes like:
>-printf(foo);
>+printf("%s", foo);
>
> So disable the flags when the compiler supports them.
Some toolchains enable security warning flags by default, but these don't
really make sense in the u-boot world. Such as forcing changes like:
-printf(foo);
+printf("%s", foo);
So disable the flags when the compiler supports them. Linux has already
merged a similar change in thei
4 matches
Mail list logo