lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Sun, 8 Nov 2009 13:22:26 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <>
To:	Michael Cree <>
	Richard Henderson <>,
	Ivan Kokshaysky <>,
	Peter Zijlstra <>,
	Paul Mackerras <>,
	Andrew Morton <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [alpha] Add minimal support for software performance

* Michael Cree <> wrote:

> > Should be done not by removing the stack-protector build 
> > unconditionally - but by auto-testing whether stackprotector is 
> > supported by GCC and using it if yes.
> Revised patch attached.  It includes a test that the compiler doesn't 
> bomb out with -fstack-protector-all and only adds the option to CFLAGS 
> if ok.  But I have had to put the test below the definition of the 
> macro CC.  This has the side effect of separating the addition of 
> -fstack-protector-all from the main definitions of CFLAGS and 
> ALL_CFLAGS, and is not ideal in my opinion.  The patch also removes 
> -Wcast-align (I forgot to say that in the commit message of the 
> patch).

Nice, i'll queue this up for Linus.

Your S-O-B line was missing from this second patch - i presume you 
intended it to be included, right?


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists