[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111104031752.GA8890@openwall.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 07:17:52 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: owl-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: gcc .a's and .so's
Vasiliy,
It turns out that your gcc.spec did not package the libgomp.so symlink,
which resulted in my test OpenMP program builds getting (silently)
statically-linked against libgomp.a. This is not how other distros do it.
I've just added packaging of the .so to the same -devel subpackage that
had the .a, but I think there are more discrepancies like this. In some
cases, they can be missing .so's. In others, they may be .a's that
shouldn't be packaged. Can you please check your gcc.spec vs. Fedora's
to spot unintentional differences like that? Our gcc.spec is meant to
stay a lot smaller than Fedora's, but for components that we do package,
we want to package them similarly (spec file cleanups are desired, but
unintentional differences in what files we package are not).
I've just tested the "-fstack-protector -fPIE -pie" combination on
Fedora 14 (OpenVZ container on Owl) - and it works fine there. There's
no libssp.a file on that system, nor any other libssp.* file.
[root@...1432 /]# find / -name '*libssp*'
[root@...1432 /]#
Thanks,
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.
