[gentoo-dev] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=232084
I was looking to do a workaround on a per compiler basis. I'm looking at toolchain-funcs.eclass, and specifically ${gcc-fullversion}. I've got a broken ebuild (dhcdbd) which requires -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE to compile correctly with GCC 4.3.3. But reading tells me that I should not use this eclass to set compiler settings directly. Will this work, and other than the merit of the fix is there a more desirable structure for such a solution? inherit flag-o-matic toolchain-funcs if [ "${gcc-fullversion}" -eq "4.3.3" ] #(or whatever the 4.3.3 $gcc-fullversion} outputs) then append-flags -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE fi Thanks for the help.
Re: [gentoo-dev] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=232084
On Tuesday 24 February 2009 00:57:25 Andrew D Kirch wrote: > I was looking to do a workaround on a per compiler basis. > I'm looking at toolchain-funcs.eclass, and specifically > ${gcc-fullversion}. I've got a broken ebuild (dhcdbd) which requires > -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE to compile correctly with GCC 4.3.3. it's broken whenever fortify source is used, but gcc-4.3.3 is more of an issue because it's on by default. however, this flag should not go in any dhcdbd ebuild considering the fix posted by Magnus to that bug is clearly correct. > But reading > tells me that I should not use this eclass to set compiler settings > directly. Will this work, and other than the merit of the fix is there > a more desirable structure for such a solution? > > inherit flag-o-matic toolchain-funcs > > if [ "${gcc-fullversion}" -eq "4.3.3" ] #(or whatever the 4.3.3 > $gcc-fullversion} outputs) > then > append-flags -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE > fi i'll just address style/usage issues here rather than "is this change even correct" ... -eq is for numeric values, not strings. so you'd want: [[ $(gcc-fullversion) == "4.3.3" ]] && append-cppflags -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=232084
fyi my email client doesn't recognize urls in the subject line, don't know about anyone elses... but it'd be nice to click the link to the bug, and you know have some clue what this is about without reading the bug (e.g. a useful subject line). sorry I can't be of any further help here. On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 12:57 AM, Andrew D Kirch wrote: > Thanks for the help. -- Caleb Cushing http://xenoterracide.blogspot.com