Message ID | 1456677695-29778-12-git-send-email-nix@esperi.org.uk |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Nix <nix@esperi.org.uk> writes: > +# We might want to compile with some stack-protection flag. > +ifneq ($(stack-protector),) > ++stack-protector=$(stack-protector) > +endif Why do you need that indirection? Andreas.
On 28 Feb 2016, Andreas Schwab outgrape: > Nix <nix@esperi.org.uk> writes: > >> +# We might want to compile with some stack-protection flag. >> +ifneq ($(stack-protector),) >> ++stack-protector=$(stack-protector) >> +endif > > Why do you need that indirection? For consistency: almost everything else added to +cflags has a similarly-prepended name (even when it's always set to a literal constant: e.g +merge-constants and +math-flags). I'm happy to drop it if people think it's redundant: it's not like $(+stack-protector) is used anywhere else.
diff --git a/Makeconfig b/Makeconfig index 87a22e8..efcfdad 100644 --- a/Makeconfig +++ b/Makeconfig @@ -762,6 +762,11 @@ endif # disable any optimization that assume default rounding mode. +math-flags = -frounding-math +# We might want to compile with some stack-protection flag. +ifneq ($(stack-protector),) ++stack-protector=$(stack-protector) +endif + # This is the program that generates makefile dependencies from C source files. # The -MP flag tells GCC >= 3.2 (which we now require) to produce dummy # targets for headers so that removed headers don't break the build. @@ -821,7 +826,8 @@ ifeq "$(strip $(+cflags))" "" +cflags := $(default_cflags) endif # $(+cflags) == "" -+cflags += $(cflags-cpu) $(+gccwarn) $(+merge-constants) $(+math-flags) ++cflags += $(cflags-cpu) $(+gccwarn) $(+merge-constants) $(+math-flags) \ + $(+stack-protector) +gcc-nowarn := -w # Don't duplicate options if we inherited variables from the parent.
From: Nick Alcock <nick.alcock@oracle.com> This finally turns on all the machinery added in previous commits. v3: Wrap long lines. --- Makeconfig | 8 +++++++- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)