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 821111387FD for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2014 13:38:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 76D6DE08C1; Fri, 13 Jun 2014 13:38:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ve0-f170.google.com (mail-ve0-f170.google.com [209.85.128.170]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FA75E0869 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2014 13:38:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ve0-f170.google.com with SMTP id oz11so3360180veb.1 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2014 06:38:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=zQMCmBnSS2FMmuAporQYKK5uXK9w86SMYIv9mlx9aAA=; b=q2Ryfs5RFX+KA9ngMMjgN3uICo1/XZVNPy9/9BVX12bnNQLcb9VPN6icTwfucAlXtB MXsD2zrah7OYu33Ge/1cQS6AyaBOj9TTJdoH+SJ34/pxF0DnTgyk4/Mm6wI5b8Vs+P6J EkO7uGVUhCgqeRkfuIyVJZELuapiACITRM9ABvHyytebZBu407RsitRj0suqTYg+Vz+4 1vaz0ATimjRgqNT/IqfDsN1AOad6MgJ6unsH+tJvGKZnVYaEyz+7V9IlApwGYUIBOztd /deV/hYaPdP8rIZuyDhEfu1CYPcHhS5J2GsS/3XduzzXpuTG4wKz+nHhD2FxIthdT6V4 o9cA== 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 10.52.230.34 with SMTP id sv2mr848934vdc.57.1402666712689; Fri, 13 Jun 2014 06:38:32 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.30.227 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Jun 2014 06:38:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140613152238.48bfde08@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> 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 09:38:32 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: _EBH_TZOhNEYmfMdwxugfB1rDU8 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] News item: GCC 4.8.3 defaults to -fstack-protector From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 92d82ffe-314b-4d52-a9ca-f7828063a22f X-Archives-Hash: 270db3a6ae404fa3d43702dd6f1bee02 On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 9:22 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: > The problem I see is that anyone who wants to switch to having > -fstack-protector enabled by default early will run into the glibc > problem (much as I did), when all the bug reports that point out the > problem have been closed as INVALID. A simple `strip-flags > -fstack-protector' in the appropriate (non-hardened?) cases should > prevent more duplicate bug reports, I guess. ++ If we know everybody is going to be on -fstack-protector in a few months just add the strip-flags statement to the ebuild and be done with it. Squabbling over whether those using the flag are bringing breakage upon themselves is like trying to hold back the sea. We should be encouraging people to add the flag and report bugs, and if a package doesn't work with it and doesn't strip it I think we should consider it a package bug now. Ten years ago when it was fairly unsupported the argument made more sense (you can't filter every little thing that can break a package). Rich