On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 01:50:47AM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
It's perhaps ugly, but DEB_CFLAGS_MAINT_APPEND=-Os works fine for me.
Why would it be ugly? I think that's the correct interface to change the
Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
Is the evaluation order of GCC options properly specified, i.e. is there
a guarantee that -Os overrides the previous -O2
Yes.
(From the manual:
If you use multiple -O options, with or without level
numbers, the last such option is the one that is
On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 12:59:16PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
Is the evaluation order of GCC options properly specified, i.e. is there
a guarantee that -Os overrides the previous -O2
Yes.
(From the manual:
If you use multiple -O options, with or
Hi,
On Sat, 31 Dec 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
One recurring issue I found in many rules files is that they're
building with different optimization levels other than O2. In most
cases it's -O3 or -Os.
In such cases, maintainers have to query dpkg-buildflags
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.16.1.2
Severity: wishlist
Hi Raphael,
I've started to submit patches to enable hardened build flags. After
having converted approx. 50 packages I've found the interface useful
and convenient, thanks for implementing it!
One recurring issue I found in many rules files
Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
One recurring issue I found in many rules files is that they're
building with different optimization levels other than O2. In most
cases it's -O3 or -Os.
In such cases, maintainers have to query dpkg-buildflags and substitute
the output with the optimitation level
6 matches
Mail list logo
