Change looks good.
/Erik
On 2016-02-05 11:48, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
A previous fix to check if -fstack-protector is accepted by gcc
failed, since when testing the option, gcc emitted a warning and not
an error.
The one thing I'm thinking here about is if the ssp-buffer-size option
should be more tightly coupled with the -fstack-protector flag. It
does not harm to have it without the -f flag, but it seems a bit
funny. Opinions?
I also noted that this flag is added to CFLAGS_DEBUG_OPTIONS. This
means that it only gets activated if we generate debug symbols. For
Oracle builds we always do so it doesn't really matter, but I'd say
that it's technically incorrect. I'd rather not fix that now, though,
but save it for the upcoming and long overdue cleanup of flags handling.
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8129395
Patch inline:
diff --git a/common/autoconf/flags.m4 b/common/autoconf/flags.m4
--- a/common/autoconf/flags.m4
+++ b/common/autoconf/flags.m4
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
#
-# Copyright (c) 2011, 2015, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights
reserved.
+# Copyright (c) 2011, 2016, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights
reserved.
# DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS FILE HEADER.
#
# This code is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
@@ -426,7 +426,7 @@
# 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(ARGUMENT:
[$STACK_PROTECTOR_CFLAG], IF_FALSE: [STACK_PROTECTOR_CFLAG=""])
+ FLAGS_COMPILER_CHECK_ARGUMENTS(ARGUMENT:
[$STACK_PROTECTOR_CFLAG -Werror], IF_FALSE: [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"
/Magnus
