On 09/05/13 13:36, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 05/08/2013 09:19 PM, Allan McRae wrote:
>> I believe autoconf uses "CPP CPPFLAGS" to detect headers mainly because
>> of "-I" flags needing to be considered. Would an acceptable solution at
>> the autoconf level be to split the CPPFLAGS into -I flags and o
On 05/08/2013 08:19 PM, Allan McRae wrote:
> Would an acceptable solution at
> the autoconf level be to split the CPPFLAGS into -I flags and others
> (-D, -U) and just use the -I ones in the header test?
I don't think so, no. -D and -U can affect whether cpp works.
__
On 05/08/2013 09:19 PM, Allan McRae wrote:
> I believe autoconf uses "CPP CPPFLAGS" to detect headers mainly because
> of "-I" flags needing to be considered. Would an acceptable solution at
> the autoconf level be to split the CPPFLAGS into -I flags and others
> (-D, -U) and just use the -I ones
On 09/05/13 07:11, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 05/08/13 11:26, Anatol Pomozov wrote:
>> Why autoconf uses CPPFLAGS
>> (and not CPPFLAGS+CXXFLAGS) for headers discovery?
>
> It's a long story, but basically autoconf used to invoke
> just the preprocessor to test for header existence, partly
> on the gr
On 05/08/13 11:26, Anatol Pomozov wrote:
> Why autoconf uses CPPFLAGS
> (and not CPPFLAGS+CXXFLAGS) for headers discovery?
It's a long story, but basically autoconf used to invoke
just the preprocessor to test for header existence, partly
on the grounds of making 'configure' go faster. That turns
Hi
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 05/08/2013 04:00 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 1:17 AM, Allan McRae wrote:
>>
>>> Our distribution packages are compiled with:
>>>
>>> CPPFLAGS="-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2"
>>> CFLAGS="-march=x86-64 -mtune=generic -
On 05/08/2013 04:00 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 1:17 AM, Allan McRae wrote:
Our distribution packages are compiled with:
CPPFLAGS="-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2"
CFLAGS="-march=x86-64 -mtune=generic -O2 -pipe -fstack-protector
--param=ssp-buffer-size=4"
So when both CPPFLAGS and CFL
On Wednesday 08 May 2013 01:01:06 Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 05/07/2013 08:49 PM, Anatol Pomozov wrote:
> > recent versions of glibc produces a
> > warning when it compiles apps with _FORTIFY_SOURCE but without -O2
>
> That's a real problem, which will break lots of things.
i complained when the cha
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 05/08/2013 07:00 AM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> I note that Debian has patched this warning out of their (just now
>> appeared in unstable) glibc 2.17.
>
> Sounds like a win to me. Maybe I should file a glibc bug report
> upstream
If you
On 05/08/2013 07:00 AM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> I think the quick fix from your end is to move -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE to
> CFLAGS (and presumably also CXXFLAGS).
Another possibility is to append -O2 to CPPFLAGS. The point is that
-O2 should always be used if -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE is.
> I note that Debian
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 1:17 AM, Allan McRae wrote:
> Our distribution packages are compiled with:
>
> CPPFLAGS="-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2"
> CFLAGS="-march=x86-64 -mtune=generic -O2 -pipe -fstack-protector
> --param=ssp-buffer-size=4"
>
> So when both CPPFLAGS and CFLAGS are passed there is no issue.
I
11 matches
Mail list logo
