-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hello Martin,
> I don't think that a Debian bug report is the right place to "push" a
> patch into gcc (i.e. to lobby for it).
thats not what I wanted to do. I think IBM and the other big users of this
patch, will do this themselves. But I think in the meantime it would be a win
to debian. Yes, it's mostly not a good idea to have features patches in the
debian diff, but this would give security and, when I'm not wrong, wouldn't
not make the compiled programs incompatible to normal programs.
> From a quick review of the patch, I notice the following problems:
> > Now why. The patch adds an option to gcc, which can optionally be made
> > default
> It is not true that the command line option disables the patch
> completely. The changes to reload1.c, gcse.c, function.c, and cse.c
> are not disabled if the feature is disabled.
[SNIP]
That's why I suggested a separate version of gcc as an option. Like there are
versions with and without ssl for many packages, there could be a gcc version
with and without stack protection. If you think this not a good idea, I would
agree to close the report.
With kind regards
Torsten Knodt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE9A7PrX1/CjdwsodIRAltQAJ4pHtMyhUwL8bMX8QpRphDMgU0a7ACfU7DJ
uTRmE3VDvMmogX0J0i5O+mE=
=k8t8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
