This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH 11/16] Enable -fstack-protector=* when requested by configure.
- From: Nix <nix at esperi dot org dot uk>
- To: Andreas Schwab <schwab at linux-m68k dot org>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 10:28:59 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/16] Enable -fstack-protector=* when requested by configure.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1456677695-29778-1-git-send-email-nix at esperi dot org dot uk> <1456677695-29778-12-git-send-email-nix at esperi dot org dot uk> <878u24r3a4 dot fsf at linux-m68k dot org>
On 28 Feb 2016, Andreas Schwab outgrape:
> Nix <nix@esperi.org.uk> writes:
>
>> +# We might want to compile with some stack-protection flag.
>> +ifneq ($(stack-protector),)
>> ++stack-protector=$(stack-protector)
>> +endif
>
> Why do you need that indirection?
For consistency: almost everything else added to +cflags has a
similarly-prepended name (even when it's always set to a literal
constant: e.g +merge-constants and +math-flags).
I'm happy to drop it if people think it's redundant: it's not like
$(+stack-protector) is used anywhere else.
--
NULL && (void)