On Mon, Sep 28, 2009, Pinto Elia wrote:
> -AC_ARG_ENABLE(build-optimization,
> - AS_HELP_STRING([--enable-build-optimization], [build RPM instrumented
> for extra optimization/security (GCC only)]), [dnl
> - if test ".$enableval" = .yes; then
> - if test ".`$CC --version 2>&1 | grep 'GCC'`" != .; then
> - dnl # GNU GCC (usually "gcc")
> - CFLAGS="$CFLAGS -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks"
> - fi
> - fi
> -])
> +dnl # build RPM instrumented for extra optimization/security (GCC only)
> +dnl # -fno-delete-null-pointer as the kernel does
> http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/36060/
> +if test ".`$CC --version 2>&1 | grep 'GCC'`" != .; then
> +dnl # GNU GCC (usually "gcc")
> + CFLAGS="$CFLAGS -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
> -fexceptions -fstack-protector"
> +fi
> AC_ARG_ENABLE(build-gcov,
> AS_HELP_STRING([--enable-build-gcov], [build RPM instrumented for
> gcov]), [dnl
> if test ".$enableval" = .yes; then
> @@ .
Errr.. no, I don't think it is reasonable to enable all those flags just
because one compiles with GCC. Please place all this again under an
AC_ARG_ENABLE so that one has to explicitly enable the stuff. Just one
example: things liks -fstack-protector is not available on all platforms
where GCC exists, etc.
Ralf S. Engelschall
r...@engelschall.com
www.engelschall.com
______________________________________________________________________
RPM Package Manager http://rpm5.org
Developer Communication List rpm-devel@rpm5.org
