On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:24:22 + (UTC)
"Joseph S. Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>
> > Thomas Schwinge dixit:
> >
> > >Ideally, IMO, this test (for stack-smashing-protection support in
> > >glibc) should not be done by grepping through SYSROOT's
Hello!
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 01:25:52PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Thomas Schwinge, le Fri 10 Oct 2008 10:37:50 +0200, a écrit :
> > Ideally, IMO, this test (for stack-smashing-protection support in glibc)
> > should not be done by grepping through SYSROOT's features.h, but instead
> > by u
Joseph S. Myers dixit:
>It's desirable to be able to configure GCC correctly in the presence of
>installed headers and only a dummy libc.so, so as to get a GCC that can be
>used to build the full glibc.
Ah, right, the GNU case. Sorry, I totally did not have that one in mind,
even though I know
Thomas Schwinge, le Fri 10 Oct 2008 10:37:50 +0200, a écrit :
> Ideally, IMO, this test (for stack-smashing-protection support in glibc)
> should not be done by grepping through SYSROOT's features.h, but instead
> by using the CPP for doing that. The problem is that CPP has not yet
> been bulit at
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Thomas Schwinge dixit:
>
> >Ideally, IMO, this test (for stack-smashing-protection support in glibc)
> >should not be done by grepping through SYSROOT's features.h, but instead
> >by using the CPP for doing that.
>
> Why not just autoconf?
>
> Check
Hello!
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 09:48:02AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Thomas Schwinge dixit:
> >Ideally, IMO, this test (for stack-smashing-protection support in glibc)
> >should not be done by grepping through SYSROOT's features.h, but instead
> >by using the CPP for doing that.
>
> Why not
Thomas Schwinge dixit:
>Ideally, IMO, this test (for stack-smashing-protection support in glibc)
>should not be done by grepping through SYSROOT's features.h, but instead
>by using the CPP for doing that.
Why not just autoconf?
Check for the presence of __stack_smash_handler() in libc… or am I m
Hello!
On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 11:49:06AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > Unfortunately, NATIVE_SYSTEM_HEADER_DIR is a Makefile variable (see
> > gcc/config/t-gnu). It is being used only in three places:
> > gcc/config/t-gnu, gcc/config/t-gnu and gcc/config/i386/t-mingw32. What
That list was bo
Thomas Schwinge dixit:
>First, the check for gcc_cv_libc_provides_ssp is not complete, as has
>already pointed out (with patches!) before, but is still not fixed on
>trunk. Let me revisit that: in configure.ac it is being checked for
>``case "$target" in *-*-linux*)'' which should rather match ``
Hello!
First, the check for gcc_cv_libc_provides_ssp is not complete, as has
already pointed out (with patches!) before, but is still not fixed on
trunk. Let me revisit that: in configure.ac it is being checked for
``case "$target" in *-*-linux*)'' which should rather match ``*-*-linux*
| *-*-*-g
10 matches
Mail list logo
