[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111104004621.GA8355@openwall.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 04:46:21 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: owl-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: %optflags for new gcc
On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 04:37:31AM +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
> 3. -Wl,-z,relro
>
> I am doing a test build now, no problems so far.
This has worked, but some of the resulting binaries are not RELRO, which
is caused by %optflags not always being used during linking. This is an
instance of the same problem seen with -fstack-protector, except that
here instead of a failed build we get no protection.
In general, do we want to use %optflags universally - that is, mix both
compiler and linker flags in it - or separate it into two somehow?
(Or into four, considering our separation for bin vs. lib.)
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
