On 01/11/12 12:23, Damyan Ivanov wrote: > -=| Alex Peshkoff, 11.01.2012 11:57:55 +0400 |=- >> On 01/10/12 21:17, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: >>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 11:06:04AM +0200, Damyan Ivanov wrote: >>>>> - The check for fortified source functions depends on the use of >>>>> such functions. If none of them are present the error "no >>>>> protectable libc functions used" is shown. However, there are also >>>>> results that show "no" (e.g. /usr/bin/fbsvcmgr). As such, there >>>>> might indeed be a problem with the LDFLAGS being overwritten. >>>> Most of the binaries suffer from this, and in the end the reason >>>> appears to be missing usage of CPPFLAGS when compiling C++ sources. >>> That's correct. I've meant CPPFLAGS. >> CPreProcessorFLAGS when compiling C++ resources? I always use for it >> CXXFLAGS, which are taken into an account in firebird makefiles. >> >> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/495598/difference-between-cppflags-and-cxxflags-in-gnu-make > CPP can pre-process all kinds of sources, C, C++, Fortran... and we > want all of them to have that _FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 define. I think this > is the reason to put it in CPPFLAGS -- to have it when pre-processing
I've added support for CPPFLAGS. Moreover, now I use it internally for regular posix build (http://tracker.firebirdsql.org/browse/CORE-3727). So I hope you should not have problems with _FORTIFY_SOURCE. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org