From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org-S1161313AbWG1Vk7@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1161313AbWG1Vk7 (ORCPT <rfc822;willy@w.ods.org>);
	Fri, 28 Jul 2006 17:40:59 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161316AbWG1Vk7
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Fri, 28 Jul 2006 17:40:59 -0400
Received: from a222036.upc-a.chello.nl ([62.163.222.36]:19384 "EHLO
	laptopd505.fenrus.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1161313AbWG1Vk6 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 28 Jul 2006 17:40:58 -0400
Subject: Re: [patch 5/5] Add the -fstack-protector option to the CFLAGS
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
To: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org
In-Reply-To: <20060728212643.GA32455@mars.ravnborg.org>
References: <1154102546.6416.9.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
	 <200607282045.05292.ak@suse.de>
	 <1154112511.6416.46.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
	 <200607282100.01783.ak@suse.de>  <20060728212643.GA32455@mars.ravnborg.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 23:40:45 +0200
Message-Id: <1154122845.6416.61.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4) 
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, 2006-07-28 at 23:26 +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 09:00:01PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Friday 28 July 2006 20:48, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2006-07-28 at 20:45 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > > > +ifdef CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR
> > > > > +CFLAGS += $(call cc-ifversion, -lt, 0402, -fno-stack-protector)
> > > > > +CFLAGS += $(call cc-ifversion, -ge, 0402, -fstack-protector)
> > > >
> > > > Why can't you just use the normal call cc-option for this?
> > >
> > > this requires gcc 4.2; cc-option is not useful for that.
> > 
> > The CC option thing is also very ugly.
> The check is executed once pr. kernel compile - or at least once pr.
> line. The reson to use cc-ifversion is that we need to check for a
> specific gcc version and not just support for a specific argument type.
> 
> That said - checking for a version is not as reliable as checking if a
> certain feature is really supported but Arjan suggested testing for
> version >= 4.2 should do it.


it's not hard to run a shell script that returns supported or not. I can
do the shell script no problem... but I would prefer that you then do
the Makefile foo for it :)
Would that work?