Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 11:12:51PM +0100, Farkas Levente wrote:
Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 02:31:46PM +0100, Farkas Levente wrote:
Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 10:42:56PM +0100, Farkas Levente wrote:
hi, what was the reason to not add -fstack-protector to mingw's cflags? i didn't see the reason.
It didn't work -- at least in the version of GCC that I tried it with originally. IIRC compiled OK, but there was a missing symbol when linking. Maybe it does work now. I haven't tested it recently.
BTW, we are all away until Jan 2nd ~ 5th, so don't expect much to happen before next week.
what's not compile? gcc or any given package?
It does in fact appear to work now. Does this mean that our C flags are identical to the standard Fedora C flags?
almost. i'd like to be as little different as possible. so the only difference in this case would be the mms... would you change flags in the filesystem macro?
I forgot about the bitfields flag. However it seems we can do this ...
%define _mingw32_cflags %{__global_cflags} -mms-bitfields
may be it cab be even better then the current ones.