From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:46343) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UUgrk-0005ix-Mn for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 13:18:53 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UUgrf-0003tE-TT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 13:18:52 -0400 Message-ID: <5176C26D.9050508@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 19:18:37 +0200 From: Michal Privoznik MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <9021f2f9e51e4c7a253d1993ea05f87d0718752f.1359627279.git.mprivozn@redhat.com> <510B90C9.8000309@suse.de> <510BDCBF.5040108@redhat.com> <20130206144956.GA22233@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com> <51127222.1040904@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <51127222.1040904@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-trivial] [PATCH] configure: Undefine _FORTIFY_SOURCE prior using it List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: qemu-trivial@nongnu.org, Stefan Hajnoczi , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?= , Richard Henderson On 06.02.2013 16:09, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 06/02/2013 15:49, Stefan Hajnoczi ha scritto: >>>> I don't think that's necessary. The 2nd level is the highest one [1] or [2]. >>>> It seems like in my case it's compiler who's defining the macro: >>>> >>>> $ echo "int main() {return 0;}" | gcc -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -x c - >>>> :0:0: warning: "_FORTIFY_SOURCE" redefined [enabled by default] >>>> :1:0: note: this is the location of the previous definition >>>> >>>> in which case we must undefine it. However, if the _FORTIFY_SOURCE is >>>> defined by environment, I think we should not override it. So maybe need >>>> a different approach. Anyway, with current state I cannot compile. I am using >>>> gcc version 4.7.2 (Gentoo 4.7.2 p1.3, pie-0.5.5) >> It would be nice to fix this for QEMU 1.4 but my gcc FORTIFY_SOURCE foo >> is not strong enough to know what the best approach is here. >> >> Reviews from anyone else? > > I would prefer to avoid having _FORTIFY_SOURCE completely, and let > distros do it. Alternatively, tie it to a new --enable switch which > would do -U -D. > > But if there is a real problem for 1.4 the patch looks good. > > Paolo > Sorry for resurrecting such old thread, but what's the conclusion then? I keep hitting this problem and I am tired of having one single patch on the top of HEAD. And I bet others ran into this as well. Michal