This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Weaken -fstack-protector configure test to a compile test


On Wed, 21 Mar 2012, Roland McGrath wrote:

> But one thing that comes to mind is if the old check might also have been
> verifying that GCC was not generating some external library call that is
> missing.

The trouble with that is that on platforms where external library 
references are involved, it's references to __stack_chk_* identifiers that 
the newly built glibc will definitely provide - and running a link test is 
testing the wrong, old glibc for whether those functions are present 
(although since the relevant symbol versions are GLIBC_2.4, it's not that 
likely that the previous libc will be old enough for that to cause a wrong 
result if there is a previous libc at all).

> Also, the old test actually compiled a function whereas now it's an empty
> input file.  So if there is some error/warning that only arises when the
> compiler actually has anything to do, we could be missing it.

I don't think that's an issue; these sorts of warnings for unsupported 
options are given at the end of option processing, without regard to 
whether there is anything for the compiler to do.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]