From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30678 invoked from network); 23 Sep 2004 01:37:48 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 23 Sep 2004 01:37:48 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.41) id 1CAIYN-0001FB-Kj for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 01:37:47 +0000 Received: (qmail 29375 invoked by uid 89); 23 Sep 2004 01:37:47 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 5186 invoked from network); 23 Sep 2004 01:37:46 +0000 Message-ID: <41522997.1090002@comcast.net> Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 21:40:39 -0400 From: John Richard Moser User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (X11/20040916) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ciaran McCreesh CC: solar@gentoo.org, gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <4151A04F.5090304@comcast.net> <20040922170424.26f1253b@snowdrop.home> <4151EB12.9010504@comcast.net> <1095898314.5905.2889.camel@simple> <20040923012718.09149bab@snowdrop.home> In-Reply-To: <20040923012718.09149bab@snowdrop.home> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.85.0.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Stack smash protected daemons X-Archives-Salt: 9c919e52-5668-4ca0-a149-883b618f6d99 X-Archives-Hash: 4b496d286c8755501fa8d26cf875a15c -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 20:11:54 -0400 Ned Ludd wrote: | | > Well then leave it turned off, but put a note about the availability | | > of the feature in the comments above FEATURES= in make.conf. | | | | With FEATURES="noautossp" the user would be free to disable it on | | their own accord but being a responsible distribution to the users and | | the computing world we would/should not. | | Personally, I would be *very* wary about giving our x86 users a 5% | performance hit 1. Where are you getting 5% from? 2. What context is this "Performance" hit in? gcc would take a "performance" hit because it eats 100% CPU; most nothing else would take a "performance" hit unless the *overhead* pulled CPU usage up to 100% for a time. I guess this is the point where I have to ebuild unpack nbyte and generate SSP benchmarks. Why oh why didn't I bench ssp when I was doing PIC? [...] | - -- All content of all messages exchanged herein are left in the Public Domain, unless otherwise explicitly stated. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFBUimWhDd4aOud5P8RAqFLAJ9J847toJdMiRvwSMvg46qgyKDxAgCfRBG/ WXnLFqhDKhfIayzE3PpicQU= =lQWn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list