> On Nov. 2, 2016, 9:33 a.m., Benjamin Bannier wrote: > > 3rdparty/stout/m4/ax_check_compile_flag.m4, line 1 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/52696/diff/4/?file=1551005#file1551005line1> > > > > For future updates it would be great if we'd write down the > > autoconf-archive release this file came from (it looks like the latest > > release containing it is `v2016.09.16`). > > Benjamin Bannier wrote: > You marked this as resolved, but I couldn't find the change. Could you > please update e.g., the commit message to include something like > > This commit adds ax_check_compiler_flag.m4 from > git://git.sv.gnu.org/autoconf-archive.git tag v2016.09.16.
I've updated the description. That hash points to a diff that was made in 2015 so I figured it was best no to say v2016.09.16. - Aaron ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/52696/#review154526 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Nov. 9, 2016, 7:05 p.m., Aaron Wood wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/52696/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Nov. 9, 2016, 7:05 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, James Peach, Michael Park, and Neil Conway. > > > Bugs: MESOS-6229 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-6229 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Add hardened flags for stout. > Take compile flag macro at 1a869696e4129279f7b99c3f9052717354b79a86. > > > Diffs > ----- > > 3rdparty/stout/Makefile.am 4e10ae2 > 3rdparty/stout/configure.ac f071f61 > 3rdparty/stout/m4/ax_check_compile_flag.m4 PRE-CREATION > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/52696/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Compared the benchmarks with and without the flags being used. Also did a > comparsion with the flags being used with and without optimizations and > without the flags being used with and without optimizations. Overall the > performance hit was very small with a 3-8% overhead (optimizations brings > this down slightly). Most benchmarks were about 5% (or less) slower. > > > File Attachments > ---------------- > > --enable-optimized with hardening applied > > https://reviews.apache.org/media/uploaded/files/2016/11/02/18a2f590-75ad-49c5-a697-56b746f28cae__hardened-optimized.txt > Hardening applied but no --enable-optimized > > https://reviews.apache.org/media/uploaded/files/2016/11/02/a6e07766-80cc-4bd7-856d-8952cac12562__hardened-unoptimized.txt > --enable-optimized with no hardening applied > > https://reviews.apache.org/media/uploaded/files/2016/11/02/046b37a9-5aff-4543-b3bb-5ac60daaf498__optimized.txt > No hardening applied and no --enable-optimized > > https://reviews.apache.org/media/uploaded/files/2016/11/02/3baa96cf-be05-4ac0-ad4c-ef571386e8f4__unoptimized.txt > > > Thanks, > > Aaron Wood > >
