Your message dated Sun, 14 Jul 2002 18:33:20 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#149463: There should be a gcc version with stack
protection patch
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 9 Jun 2002 17:39:36 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jun 09 12:39:36 2002
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from dsl-213-023-053-059.arcor-ip.net (datas-world.dyndns.org)
[213.23.53.59]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 17H6f9-0002mZ-00; Sun, 09 Jun 2002 12:39:36 -0500
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
(uid 1001)
by datas-world.dyndns.org with local; Sun, 09 Jun 2002 19:38:46 +0200
Subject: There should be a gcc version with stack protection patch
From: "Torsten Knodt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Debian Bug Tracking System" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailer: reportbug 1.99.36
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 19:38:45 +0200
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package: gcc-2.95
Version: 1:2.95.4-9
Severity: wishlist
Hello,
I think there should be a gcc version with stack protection patch included.
The patch was sent in the gcc patches mailing list. Perhaps a single version
is enough, as the patch can be (completly ?) disabled.
With kind regards
Torsten Knodt
-- System Information
Debian Release: 3.0
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux tk-hybrid-1 2.4.18 #1 Wed May 1 15:16:28 CEST 2002 i586
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C
Versions of packages gcc-2.95 depends on:
ii binutils 2.12.90.0.9-1 The GNU assembler, linker and bina
ii cpp-2.95 1:2.95.4-9 The GNU C preprocessor.
ii gcc 2:2.95.4-15 The GNU C compiler.
ii libc6 2.2.5-6 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
-- no debconf information
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 149463-done) by bugs.debian.org; 14 Jul 2002 16:35:09 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jul 14 11:35:09 2002
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from mail.cs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.17.13] (root)
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 17TmKz-0004Ww-00; Sun, 14 Jul 2002 11:35:09 -0500
Received: from bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [130.149.19.1])
by mail.cs.tu-berlin.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA03768;
Sun, 14 Jul 2002 18:33:20 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
by bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) id g6EGXKI22750;
Sun, 14 Jul 2002 18:33:20 +0200 (MEST)
From: Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 18:33:20 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Torsten Knodt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bug#149463: There should be a gcc version with stack protection
patch
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailer: VM 7.03 under 21.4 (patch 6) "Common Lisp" XEmacs Lucid
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Philip Blundell writes:
> On Sun, 2002-06-09 at 20:26, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
> > I don't think that a Debian bug report is the right place to "push" a
> > patch into gcc (i.e. to lobby for it).
> >
> > Instead, you should assume that all patches that have been submitted
> > to gcc-patches are implicitly Debian bug reports which already have
> > been forwarded upstream. The status of such a report changes when GCC
> > maintainers act on the patch (e.g. reject it).
>
> That's not strictly true. The version of GCC shipped with Debian does
> have extra patches applied to it, and lobbying to have another one added
> is a reasonable enough thing to do.
Closing the report. We are moving to gcc-3.1 as the default
compiler. Better to keep gcc-2.95 unchanged in this situation for a
fallback. Maybe you want to test/evaluate the patch for gcc-3.1 or the
current HEAD banch and re-submit it upstream?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
