On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 18:41:34 -0400 Richard Yao <r...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> A few thoughts: > > 1. The kernel expects -fno-stack-protector to be the default. What will > the effect be on kernel configuration once -fstack-protector is the default? The kernel has supported building with -fstack-protector since 2.6.19, (at least on x86/x86-64). It's controlled by CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR and if it's disabled then -fno-stack-protector is explicitly added to the command line. > 2. We should make sure that -fno-stack-protector is a supported CFLAG. > This will make it easier to handle complaints from the vocal minority of > our user base that want every last percentage point of performance. If by supported you mean that they won't be removed by things like strip-flags, then yes, -fstack-protector -fstack-protector-all -fno-stack-protector and -fno-stack-protector-all are all on the whitelist. > 3. I would like to point out that we are talking about deviating from > upstream behavior and everyone is okay with it. Anyone who thinks we > should stick to upstream when it is not good for us should speak now or > risk being asked "where were you when..." whenever they try to use > upstream as an excuse to hold back progress. ;) In this case it seems every other distro is already doing this, so we're in good company. -- Ryan Hill psn: dirtyepic_sk gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org 47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
