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 49BA81387FD for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2014 18:08:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B70F8E08D6; Fri, 13 Jun 2014 18:08:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ve0-f169.google.com (mail-ve0-f169.google.com [209.85.128.169]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5652E08CE for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2014 18:08:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ve0-f169.google.com with SMTP id pa12so3825999veb.0 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2014 11:08:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=aL/XQYrOkI0Pvh8HWznc0GB9SaRAMsTim+sMrggZv6c=; b=Ku5eNDHOloZpriTYm3vQ6+ivGFWREueBpsfNR95KSafbIWpCrq2BllD6qPdxM9owF4 ycGhzKW/BIJtruwbL2gXskRSVBKvdr8ygnLQgfZUNsfgtKEZTHerG1hqbFUv4belqpC1 DaY2WUqVNuAlmSr8ssbDsSEb7PkLSI+l58xJx1rD32Si+tplePdPOTD5yVxigyT94nRE z6nwe89Ng21kRMh61d2kKX2yctAG+R7ZA34r73JhECeuPzcyrDaxVzkA/fNLnO3tNj2v 7z3zrfHHV7HvumcQ+Xdlsv7ROJCCTzVFtrWP7R3LcWTxELiNeBYI/NMK8PsuyVaOxZvy Qk3Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQldyQDyk1l9r7eYddE/7Zve0pTSWCRXrOG03NML7VCtvHI5pOW/P4Z/HV2QfXMfBsfTcD7u 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 X-Received: by 10.58.29.198 with SMTP id m6mr2769174veh.15.1402682891619; Fri, 13 Jun 2014 11:08:11 -0700 (PDT) Sender: gmt@be-evil.net Received: by 10.220.141.207 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Jun 2014 11:08:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [75.147.143.254] In-Reply-To: References: <20140609181602.7e843747@caribou.gateway.pace.com> <20140610214750.11e599b3@caribou.gateway.pace.com> <20140611152315.423dfdfa@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> <20140612234355.72ef01c1@caribou.gateway.pace.com> <20140613152238.48bfde08@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 11:08:11 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 0d8ZSzDmhTa83LPDwkXie88L_do Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] News item: GCC 4.8.3 defaults to -fstack-protector From: Greg Turner To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: c70c0376-b29e-4def-968a-877035063ea6 X-Archives-Hash: 96bbbee6dab8614e474faba9ae837611 On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 6:38 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > add the strip-flags statement to the ebuild and be done > with it To do it "greenly" we'd obviously want to know the precise surface area of the problem and then to correctly express those circumstances in eblit code that could stand up to the test of time. Anyone know what exactly /is/ the surface area of the problem? Already the eblit filters the flag iff ( gcc-specs-ssp && test-flags-CC -fno-stack-protector ) -gmt