This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: v2: The GNU C Library 2.16 release plan
- From: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>
- To: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at systemhalted dot org>
- Cc: Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo dot org>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos_odonell at mentor dot com>, Andreas Jaegar <aj at suse dot com>, Paul Eggert <eggert at cs dot ucla dot edu>, "Ryan S. Arnold" <ryan dot arnold at gmail dot com>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 10:53:01 -0700 (PDT)
- Subject: Re: v2: The GNU C Library 2.16 release plan
- References: <4FAC3FCE.1020402@mentor.com><Pine.LNX.4.64.1205302354240.8161@digraph.polyomino.org.uk><Pine.LNX.4.64.1205311847020.15944@digraph.polyomino.org.uk><201205311551.54950.vapier@gentoo.org><CADZpyiyLBJkt-KD_E8pfnj3HC9VjWZF=D=2tKntd3r61ty-9GQ@mail.gmail.com>
> Is there any way we can come to better consensus around the fortify warnings?
What seems appropriate for configurations that want to enable fortification
by default is that they predefine some other macro whose meaning is "set
_FORTIFY_SOURCE if optimizing", rather than predefining _FORTIFY_SOURCE
itself. That way the features.h check can distinguish a user adding
-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE without -O from the predefinition.