On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 01:45:37PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: > On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 13:18, Steve Kemp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 12:10:44PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: > > > Are you using any extra patches to GCC? Or just a GCC built with the > > > propolice option? > > > > Yes I am using slightly modified patches from http://www.immunix.org/. > > > > The propolice is something that I shall be evaluating next. > > I believe that our GCC packages already have propolice patched in but not > enabled. Therefore it should be a much easier change to make for it to be > included.
This is true, debian/patches has a line for propolice (currently commented out) > > As propolice is not invoked unless a special command-line parameter is passed > to GCC it seems like a harmless thing to include. Why aren't GCC packages > being built with it? Daniel Jacobowitz says (in #213994) "They're large patches, with no testing on most architectures. They touch platform independent code. If it really did do nothing without the option, and we were convinced of that, then maybe they could be applied - I'm not convinced." The bug is tagged upstream so it seems that gcc maintainers will not enable this until upstream adds it into the mainstream source. Regards Javi
