From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E52CC138247 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 04:52:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7D4DEE0D96; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 04:51:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 781F3E0D36 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 04:51:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (77-254-165-29.adsl.inetia.pl [77.254.165.29]) (using SSLv3 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 652D233F89D; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 04:51:55 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 05:50:43 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: rich0@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] To enable ssp default in Gcc the toolchain.eclass need some changes. Message-ID: <20140110055043.57920bfb@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: References: <7554031.Sacz2dxc8i@laptop1.gw.ume.nu> <1389304629.424.44.camel@belkin5> <52CF1D7C.4030700@gentoo.org> <20140109232116.398080f1@gentoo.org> <52CF22C6.6030907@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.3 (GTK+ 2.24.22; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; boundary="Sig_/VLK=itbXCzLE86Q.peFNq5H"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 754433cb-65bd-48a0-93bb-ca7352e70b9b X-Archives-Hash: 60641b2c8d6e4e94620d6ddaca692fa0 --Sig_/VLK=itbXCzLE86Q.peFNq5H Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dnia 2014-01-09, o godz. 18:59:26 Rich Freeman napisa=C5=82(a): > On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina > wrote: > > I never felt manipulating cflags with use flags was a great idea, but in > > this case is does feel extra pointless. > > >=20 > Tend to agree, though one place I could see it being hypothetically > useful is if we need to set a use-dep. That is, package bar might > have a dep on dev-lib/libfoo[-ssp] (or nossp or whatever). >=20 > However, what I don't know is whether that will be helpful. If it is, > then it might make sense to make an exception, otherwise I agree that > overloading CFLAGS in USE flags is bad. We're talking about the ssp (nossp) flag on gcc, not target ebuilds. Ebuilds have to do stuff like '-fno-stack-protector'. The flag on gcc rebuilds whole gcc just to change the global default. --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --Sig_/VLK=itbXCzLE86Q.peFNq5H Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJSz3wnXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQ2REJCMDdDQzRGMERBRDA2RUEwQUZFNDFC MDdBMUFFQUVGQjQ0NjRFAAoJELB6GurvtEZOCnUP/i5K97NmO+rNfPAbXEFDBcMg mnPRhkt0iJyijnMACpmwL3SuHuBd+EukL7/Dc2ViWXSXj6ARKfCiYQ/nNDKSlqas 4Jb81sUX5HwgARkmZPGrkLf2b+IGX04j0h5PMw6V3075CWf9nnHjJLZ7AE2rmHHA 4VZXe5vBce+Es9nOmLDn5fz7jqddX/f9I/tv/2/PB6CpjX+QiNzugfPHBtDwV0nH 6XvPTplGE98Y5z6yQbaElPA6Z3lPFc7zTfVEBZiju2Ul8qY1j/XfWFrTNv6IZ/8H bCTlNOnjiDIF4KeLggZGG7aX0Mgq0atIdoRpWJjjSgYljKULZ966NB4Ly7w+S108 DZwkeacsVL7B/GUXnDqaAZ/eShaUBAJmGwVx6OJgD/KvcrMn8pJO3Rsx4Sn04MCa KTjgSScJEErQSoegi3yoKfJBaDLb0zJjUuoEgM1qSnGM/Srr/0x5hebCA2ZeGrU+ 6rgcp6LU4lkJB6O1vE2ILPyTji2fdnBTtFmLr8mOoBLgFNkb4NZzqkjWtBtDfjCA JPfSrXGeChIZKZg6sWYVRDGOPQNV7+zdrrZHvbV3FaseBCyRrJMiRCsNvFDCjdGS 17aBmMY4hkBpngSi1fYMM9EnIIgbyfPVBLM7Dda742kOeoyc8RefNiYe0rkmH56t ERJkEE6HUKVnkjg1MT5D =7x71 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/VLK=itbXCzLE86Q.peFNq5H--