Hi,
_FORTIFY_SOURCE=3 fail to compile with gcc 12/glibc 2.35.
Used:
(GCC) 12.0.1 20220504 (prerelease)
glibc ec5b79aac768 (release/2.35/master)
In file included from /x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/usr/include/features.h:490,
from .../x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/usr/include/asse
Check for _FORTIFY_SOURCE level was made for target, not for build
host. This level may not satisfy to libc on host. Fortification for
build tools looks insignificant, so just drop -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=...
definition for host compiler.
---
lib-host/Makefile.am | 1 +
libcpu/Makefile.am | 1 +
2 fil
Possible problem with out-of-tree build expected
---
Makefile.am | 2 +-
configure.ac | 6 ++
lib-host/Makefile.am | 47
libcpu/Makefile.am | 11 +++
4 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
create mode 100644 l
.
Tricks in use only when cross-build detected.
See also https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28891
Possible problem (not critical, IMHO): not tested for
out-of-tree build.
Petr Ovtchenkov (2):
support cross compilation
drop _FORTIFY_SOURCE for host build
Makefile.am
On Wed, 26 May 2021 12:41:51 -0300
Érico Nogueira wrote:
>
> Yes, we really cross.
It doesn't matter because
> We always use the release tarballs, which already have the %_dis.h
> files. This explains why we haven't hit any issues.
> Anyway, couldn't you (re)use the distribution tarball gene
On Wed, 26 May 2021 10:09:31 -0300
Érico Nogueira wrote:
> Hi! Are you sure this is necessary? In Void Linux, we cross compile
> elfutils for arm and aarch64 without any issue, and I have built it a
> few times for powerpc as well.
>
Hello!
Yes, I am sure. I do not know about you process (chec
Possible problem with out-of-tree build expected
---
Makefile.am | 2 +-
configure.ac | 6 ++
lib-host/Makefile.am | 47
libcpu/Makefile.am | 11 +++
4 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
create mode 100644 l