Re: RFR: JDK-8081692 Configure should verify that -fstack-protector is valid

[Erik Joelsson]

Looks good to me.

/Erik

On 2015-06-03 14:33, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:

Not all versions of gcc support -fstack-protector. We should check that it is accepted as an argument before adding it to the flags.

Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8081692
WebRev inline:

diff --git a/common/autoconf/flags.m4 b/common/autoconf/flags.m4
--- a/common/autoconf/flags.m4
+++ b/common/autoconf/flags.m4
@@ -338,14 +338,16 @@
       # no adjustment
       ;;
     slowdebug )
-      # Add runtime stack smashing and undefined behavior checks

- CFLAGS_DEBUG_OPTIONS="-fstack-protector-all --param ssp-buffer-size=1" - CXXFLAGS_DEBUG_OPTIONS="-fstack-protector-all --param ssp-buffer-size=1"

+      # Add runtime stack smashing and undefined behavior checks.
+      # Not all versions of gcc support -fstack-protector
+      STACK_PROTECTOR_CFLAG="-fstack-protector-all"

+ FLAGS_COMPILER_CHECK_ARGUMENTS([$STACK_PROTECTOR_CFLAG], [], [STACK_PROTECTOR_CFLAG=""])

+

+ CFLAGS_DEBUG_OPTIONS="$STACK_PROTECTOR_CFLAG --param ssp-buffer-size=1" + CXXFLAGS_DEBUG_OPTIONS="$STACK_PROTECTOR_CFLAG --param ssp-buffer-size=1"

       ;;
     esac
   fi
-  AC_SUBST(CFLAGS_DEBUG_OPTIONS)
-  AC_SUBST(CXXFLAGS_DEBUG_OPTIONS)

   # Optimization levels
   if test "x$TOOLCHAIN_TYPE" = xsolstudio; then

The AC_SUBST removal is just a bit of cleanup, we didn't use the *_DEBUG_OPTIONS in the spec files, just later on when constructing JDK_CFLAGS.

/Magnus