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] |
On 06 Mar 2015 22:15, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Fri, 6 Mar 2015, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > > I agree. My point is that we should do what's right for glibc first. > > If there are two ways to fix this in glibc, and one way involves modifying > > any assembly that includes the header, and the other solves the problem > > once, then the changes to header are a better solution, for glibc, in my > > opinion. This doesn't take into account any user requirements to include > > the header in assembly files. > > What about arranging for the configured CFLAGS to be used when building .S > files, so that -O options are active and the warning is avoided that way? > A comment in Makeconfig notes how -std=* can't be used for .S files, but > the -O options ought to work for them. if we're going that route, what about adding -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE to ASFLAGS at configure time ? -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |