hi, what was the reason to not add -fstack-protector to mingw's cflags? i didn't see the reason.
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.
Rich.
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?
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?
Rich.
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?
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
Rich.
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.
-
Farkas Levente -
Richard W.M. Jones