From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932336AbWDBNQA (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Apr 2006 09:16:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932338AbWDBNQA (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Apr 2006 09:16:00 -0400 Received: from morbo.e-centre.net ([66.154.82.3]:52201 "EHLO cubert.e-centre.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932336AbWDBNP7 (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Apr 2006 09:15:59 -0400 X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1143983744-10189-35-0 X-Barracuda-URL: http://10.3.1.19:8000/cgi-bin/mark.cgi X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: [PATCH 1/1] POWERPC: Fix ppc32 compile with gcc+SSP in 2.6.16 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] POWERPC: Fix ppc32 compile with gcc+SSP in 2.6.16 From: Arjan van de Ven To: John Mylchreest Cc: Olaf Hering , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org, paulus@samba.org In-Reply-To: <20060402112002.GA3443@getafix.willow.local> References: <20060401224849.GH16917@getafix.willow.local> <20060402085850.GA28857@suse.de> <20060402102259.GM16917@getafix.willow.local> <20060402102815.GA29717@suse.de> <20060402105859.GN16917@getafix.willow.local> <20060402111002.GA30017@suse.de> <20060402112002.GA3443@getafix.willow.local> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2006 15:15:38 +0200 Message-Id: <1143983738.2994.18.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.00 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=4.0 tests= X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.02, rules version 3.0.10381 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Going from that, I can push a patch for gcc upstream to remove the > __KERNEL__ dep, but gcc4.1 ships with ssp by standard, and the semantics > between the IBM patch for SSP applied to gcc-3 and ggc-4 have changed. > > -fno-stack-protector would work for gcc4, but for gcc3 it could still be since this is a thing you have to turn on to get it, not off to not get it, I think you're missing something big here ;) > patially enabled, and requires -fno-stack-protector-all. Mind If I ask > whats incorrect about defining __KERNEL__ for the bootcflags? it's silly and it's a non-standard gcc ... better get the gcc fixed to at least have the upstream protocol of having to turn it on not off..