Hi Fabian, Em ter., 24 de nov. de 2020 às 13:27, Fabian Wolff <fabi.wo...@arcor.de> escreveu: > > Dear maintainer, > > consider the following warnings emitted by blhc (line breaks are mine; > see the attached "test.log" file for an input that reproduces this > problem): > > LDFLAGS missing (-Wl,-z,relro): make VERSION="v-amd64-linux" MAKE="make" \ > CC="gcc -std=gnu99 -Wall" CFLAGS="-O2 -m64 -g -O2 \ > -fdebug-prefix-map=/<<PKGBUILDDIR>>=. -fstack-protector-strong \ > -Wformat -Werror=format-security -Wdate-time -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 \ > -Wl,-z,relro" DEFS="-DARCH_AMD64 -DSIZE_64 -DOPSYS_UNIX -DOPSYS_LINUX \ > -D_GNU_SOURCE -DGNU_ASSEMBLER -DDLOPEN -DINDIRECT_CFUNC" \ > CPPFLAGS="-Wdate-time -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2" LDFLAGS="-Wl,-z,relro" \ > AR="ar" ARFLAGS="rcv" RANLIB="ranlib" INCLUDES="-I../../objs \ > -I../../include -I.." libposix-os.a) > > CPPFLAGS missing (-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2): VERSION=v-amd64-linux \ > CPP="gcc -x assembler-with-cpp -E -P -Wdate-time -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2" \ > CPPFLAGS="-Wdate-time -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2" \ > ../../config/gen-posix-names.sh _SC_ ml_sysconf.h > > One could argue whether blhc should even consider lines like these, > because they do not actually contain any compiler calls; perhaps it > would be more sensible to delay the warnings to the actual compiler > calls that the recursive make or the script perform. However, it > doesn't hurt to be on the safe side and check calls like these, too. > > The problem is that the reportedly missing flags aren't missing at > all: The former call contains "-Wl,-z,relro" in both CFLAGS and > LDFLAGS; the latter call contains "-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2" in both CPP > and CPPFLAGS.
Since 0.12 version, blhc is able to ignore false positives spotted by line(s) "injected" inside .build file via debian/rules. See more details in blhc(1) manpage. There are examples in /usr/share/doc/blhc/README.Debian. Please, check also the debian/rules files in blhc, ngetty, libinsane, calibre, dxvk and picard-tools. Please, let me know if I can close this bug. Cheers, Eriberto
