Bug#1054583: dpkg-dev: really enable -fstack-clash-protection on armhf/armel

2023-10-27 Thread Lennart Sorensen
On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 02:29:30PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > Are either of those ports (armeb/arm64ilp32) actually useful / alive > at this point? Not that I have seen. I didn't think anything other than the IXP ever really used big endian and that's a long time ago. arm64ilp32 seems to ser

Processed: Bug#1054583 in package dpkg marked as pending

2023-10-27 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing control commands: > tag 1054583 pending Bug #1054583 [dpkg-dev] dpkg-dev: really enable -fstack-clash-protection on armhf/armel Added tag(s) pending. -- 1054583: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1054583 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with pr

Bug#1054583: dpkg-dev: really enable -fstack-clash-protection on armhf/armel

2023-10-27 Thread Steve McIntyre
On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 03:23:10PM +0200, Emanuele Rocca wrote: >Hi Guillem, > >On 2023-10-27 04:33, Guillem Jover wrote: >> Checking now again, I realize Wookey mentioned enabling this for the 3 >> arm arches (those would be arm64, armhf and armel), so the patch I >> provided would match that. But

Bug#1054583: dpkg-dev: really enable -fstack-clash-protection on armhf/armel

2023-10-27 Thread Emanuele Rocca
Hi Guillem, On 2023-10-27 04:33, Guillem Jover wrote: > Checking now again, I realize Wookey mentioned enabling this for the 3 > arm arches (those would be arm64, armhf and armel), so the patch I > provided would match that. But I was wondering now what about armeb and > arm64ilp32? I mean, I assu