Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 11:11:08 +0200 From: Jeremie Le Hen <jeremie@le-hen.org> To: Marcel Moolenaar <xcllnt@mac.com> Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Integration of ProPolice in FreeBSD Message-ID: <20080514091108.GD70896@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> In-Reply-To: <8ED24288-618C-4B55-A27E-C5FAB2E046E8@mac.com> References: <20080502070147.GE74500@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> <8ED24288-618C-4B55-A27E-C5FAB2E046E8@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Marcel, Thank you for your comments. On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 08:52:37AM -0700, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > Index: share/mk/bsd.sys.mk > =================================================================== > RCS file: /mnt/octobre/space/freebsd-cvs/src/share/mk/bsd.sys.mk,v > retrieving revision 1.44 > diff -u -p -r1.44 bsd.sys.mk > --- share/mk/bsd.sys.mk 22 Nov 2007 23:21:12 -0000 1.44 > +++ share/mk/bsd.sys.mk 29 Mar 2008 23:13:06 -0000 > @@ -74,5 +74,10 @@ CWARNFLAGS += -Werror > CWARNFLAGS += -Wno-unknown-pragmas > .endif > > +.if ${MK_SSP} != "no" && ${CC} != "icc" > +CFLAGS += -fstack-protector > +# Don't use -Wstack-protector as it breaks world with -Werror. > +.endif > + > # Allow user-specified additional warning flags > CFLAGS += ${CWARNFLAGS} > > > I may be better to explicitly test for GCC. I would not assume > that GCC and ICC are the only options, even if they are now. > There's a second place as well... I would make sense to test for GCC indeed but in the same file there is a number of explicit tests for ICC. Thus I prefer to keep to the current "style" at the expense of a little more work for those who will try to compile with another compiler. > Index: sys/boot/i386/Makefile.inc > =================================================================== > RCS file: /mnt/octobre/space/freebsd-cvs/src/sys/boot/i386/Makefile.inc,v > retrieving revision 1.12 > diff -u -p -r1.12 Makefile.inc > --- sys/boot/i386/Makefile.inc 28 Sep 2006 10:02:04 -0000 1.12 > +++ sys/boot/i386/Makefile.inc 28 Mar 2008 07:41:32 -0000 > @@ -24,3 +24,5 @@ BTXDIR= ${.CURDIR}/../btx > BTXLDR= ${BTXDIR}/btxldr/btxldr > BTXKERN= ${BTXDIR}/btx/btx > BTXCRT= ${BTXDIR}/lib/crt0.o > + > +.include "../Makefile.inc" > Index: sys/boot/i386/loader/Makefile > =================================================================== > RCS file: /mnt/octobre/space/freebsd-cvs/src/sys/boot/i386/loader/Makefile,v > retrieving revision 1.85 > diff -u -p -r1.85 Makefile > --- sys/boot/i386/loader/Makefile 29 May 2007 14:35:57 -0000 1.85 > +++ sys/boot/i386/loader/Makefile 16 Apr 2008 09:14:10 -0000 > @@ -1,5 +1,7 @@ > # $FreeBSD: src/sys/boot/i386/loader/Makefile,v 1.85 2007/05/29 14:35:57 > simokawa Exp $ > > +WITHOUT_SSP= > + > .include <bsd.own.mk> > > PROG= loader.sym > > Maybe second and third level makefiles should include > ../../Makefile.inc and ../../../Makefile.inc resp. > If, for arguments sake, we want to enable SSP in boot, > then it's best if that only requires a single knob to > be changed. This may not be a strong argument for SSP, > but with Makefile.inc in place, I don't see a possible > future in which another knob is added that controls > overall behavior (e.g. something like the Watcom option > to use argument passing in registers instead of on the > stack for i386 -- you definitely want to have that apply > to all code or none). For now, I prefer leaving it as is and let anyone else make this change. While I agree with your argument, I'm not sure this benefit is worth the complexity it adds for now, given that the only knob is WITHOUT_SSP and it would require more than a simple switch to use SSP for /boot (import SSP symbols). > Also, please make sure MK_SSP defaults to "no" on ia64. Ok, done. Best regards, -- Jeremie Le Hen < jeremie at le-hen dot org >< ttz at chchile dot org >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080514091108.GD70896>