From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org)
	by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <gentoo-dev+bounces-42187-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
	id 1OivFs-00009s-M3
	for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 10 Aug 2010 20:17:01 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 03A9BE0B47;
	Tue, 10 Aug 2010 20:16:58 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-fx0-f53.google.com (mail-fx0-f53.google.com [209.85.161.53])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38B71E0B40
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 10 Aug 2010 20:16:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by fxm5 with SMTP id 5so1146858fxm.40
        for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 10 Aug 2010 13:16:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:sender:received
         :in-reply-to:references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject
         :from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=1k85YpLhkcI7n2W1rZDX+A43qMGVi+uUdNcQ9KcPG+I=;
        b=tNRnpe5nrwdNz2fD9awU4qpvnKXPXmj71fUcoKfR72DqCdgl9lzT5PwJd+VlXr96iN
         neViG4dRC0Pr7CUT37ITCD6rdPY5/9q11QXdhErRwxca1rhR0ROKRrXA6UcwvBZZo3k+
         6YSWeL8Ggf0rR7XjfEaiTDlkQS8583RWpPHKM=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
         :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        b=dU5i/JlVesMgy5NgVhRf7xoVKPMs1CXLQt1/T0Mfwhxctr7FXvcodUsqe3SfEVvLPE
         +ngifRX0y2U7wsKvTppehtBKy9ysKgMHtOzQNgZWya/ATcmoladge8OULVZfECTi2Jrx
         cR1NK2XvQvAu0AZo75mR+GiqoI3P8/WQ3nmVg=
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.115.201 with SMTP id j9mr18815634faq.48.1281471410658; 
	Tue, 10 Aug 2010 13:16:50 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: vapierfilter@gmail.com
Received: by 10.223.109.134 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Aug 2010 13:16:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20100810084548.GG30937@hrair>
References: <20100807163230.GA31575@Mystical>
	<201008071732.43567.vapier@gentoo.org>
	<20100808001142.GA7077@Mystical>
	<201008072216.25549.vapier@gentoo.org>
	<20100809230323.GA21233@Mystical>
	<AANLkTi=GPSOpoX4H0fmP-fO=zWXaQ7-JXC0i+oT8CuzT@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100810084548.GG30937@hrair>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 16:16:50 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: JXVHgbo2j4UnVkkeS1Np9tzUVEY
Message-ID: <AANLkTimVUtMpTcisZ=jq+1knmZ3TBEZpj4FK6_oNwQJw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Add --hash-style=gnu to LDFLAGS
From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Archives-Salt: 9f481936-87f5-4d9e-b04e-f4c5e23b3b3c
X-Archives-Hash: 768bf76a1c6e441ac129f938a903aae8

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 4:45 AM, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 07:05:11PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:03 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> > On Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 10:16:24PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> >> obviously you only mean linux x86/amd64 dev profiles. =A0i dont have =
a strong
>> >> opinion on that small subset in either direction.
>> >
>> > So do you agree to make this linker option default to linux x86/amd64 =
dev/
>> > profiles?
>>
>> add them or dont add them, "i dont have a [...] opinion [...] in
>> either direction". =A0if put to a vote, i'd abstain.
>
> Possibly a stupid question, but any reason we've not looked at
> injecting something that has lower actual affect but can still be used
> for a canary? =A0I'm thinking of --build-id specifically...

my gut reaction there is now you're requiring even newer versions of
binutils than before, and not just to find ones that support
--build-id, but do so without bugs (that's my vague recollection of
things; perhaps i'm wrong).  and you still wouldnt pass the "not safe
outside of Gentoo Linux profiles".

also, although the overhead is minor, the build id section would serve
no useful purpose that i can think once it has been merged.  gnu hash
however is always used at runtime.
-mike