From: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
To: buildroot@busybox.net
Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 3/5 v2] toolchain: check the SSP option is known
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 20:26:28 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190326202628.02dfe936@windsurf> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6137_1552392583_5C87A187_6137_470_1_3090e77d-fd75-49ec-8643-3a89ee5ea133@OPEXCLILM6F.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Hello,
On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 13:09:34 +0100
<yann.morin@orange.com> wrote:
> # $1: cross-gcc path
> +# $2: gcc ssp option
> #
> check_toolchain_ssp = \
> __CROSS_CC=$(strip $1) ; \
> @@ -427,6 +428,13 @@ check_toolchain_ssp = \
> echo "SSP support not available in this toolchain, please disable BR2_TOOLCHAIN_EXTERNAL_HAS_SSP" ; \
> exit 1 ; \
> fi ; \
> + __SSP_OPTION=$(2); \
> + if [ -n "$${__SSP_OPTION}" ] ; then \
> + if ! echo 'void main(){}' | $${__CROSS_CC} -Werror $${__SSP_OPTION} -x c - -o $(BUILD_DIR)/.br-toolchain-test.tmp >/dev/null 2>&1 ; then \
> + echo "SSP option $${__SSP_OPTION} not available in this toolchain, please select another SSP level" ; \
> + exit 1 ; \
> + fi; \
> + fi; \
Does it really make sense to check for both -fstack-protector (in the
code that already exists) *and* BR2_SSP_OPTION ?
Wouldn't it make more sense to just check for BR2_SSP_OPTION ?
Thomas
--
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-03-26 19:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <cover.1552392456.git.yann.morin@orange.com>
2019-03-12 12:09 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/5 v2] toolchain: prepare to pass more additional CFLAGS via the wrapper yann.morin at orange.com
2019-03-12 23:13 ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2019-03-12 12:09 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/5 v2] toolchain: set the ssp gcc option in kconfig yann.morin at orange.com
2019-03-12 13:33 ` Matthew Weber
2019-03-12 23:14 ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2019-03-12 12:09 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH 3/5 v2] toolchain: check the SSP option is known yann.morin at orange.com
2019-03-12 23:25 ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2019-03-13 7:27 ` yann.morin at orange.com
2019-03-26 19:26 ` Thomas Petazzoni [this message]
2019-03-27 6:35 ` yann.morin at orange.com
2019-08-03 21:13 ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2019-03-12 12:09 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH 4/5 v2] toolchain: -fstack-protector-strong can be back-ported yann.morin at orange.com
2019-08-03 21:16 ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2019-08-05 6:03 ` yann.morin at orange.com
2019-03-12 12:09 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH 5/5 v2] toolchain: allow PIC/PIE without RELRO yann.morin at orange.com
2019-03-12 13:50 ` Matthew Weber
2019-03-12 14:25 ` yann.morin at orange.com
2019-08-03 21:20 ` Arnout Vandecappelle
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190326202628.02dfe936@windsurf \
--to=thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com \
--cc=buildroot@busybox.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox