On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 06:31:11PM +0100, Michal Prívozník wrote:
On 1/30/24 18:04, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 05:36:03PM +0100, Peter Krempa wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 07:42:10 -0800, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
>>> Any chance either of you could look at the other patch[1] as well?
>>> The connection to alpha is sort of tangential in that case, what's
>>> more important is that we're currently not using -fstack-protector
>>> on aarch64 even though we should.
>>
>> IMO there you should post a version which just enables
>> -fstack-protector everywhere, as in ... drop the alpha hack. That one is
>> starting to go beyond the 'trivial' change.
>
> That's not my preference, clearly, but I'm okay doing that.
>
> While this patch is strictly necessary to make libvirt build
> successfully on alpha, the alpha-related part of the other one only
> removes a number of annoying, but ultimately harmless warnings.
>
> One last chance for someone to ACK that patch as-is. If not, I'll
> cave in and post an updated, alpha-free version :)
While one could argue that this check-symfile.py patch is: a) trivial,
b) useful for other arches than just alpha (possibly, in case linker
decides to put memory into different places like S or G), it's hard to
use the same argument for -fstack-protector IMO.
Heard. v2 posted.
--
Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization