From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161325AbWG1V7H (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Jul 2006 17:59:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161326AbWG1V7H (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Jul 2006 17:59:07 -0400 Received: from pasmtpa.tele.dk ([80.160.77.114]:6036 "EHLO pasmtp.tele.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161325AbWG1V7G (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Jul 2006 17:59:06 -0400 Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 23:58:52 +0200 From: Sam Ravnborg To: Arjan van de Ven Cc: Andi Kleen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org Subject: Re: [patch 5/5] Add the -fstack-protector option to the CFLAGS Message-ID: <20060728215852.GA1164@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> <1154122845.6416.61.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1154122845.6416.61.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 11:40:45PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > 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? Yep - no problem. If you give me a day or two to do it. Sam