Re: _FORTIFY_SOURCE by default?
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: _FORTIFY_SOURCE by default? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1347820257.559.2.camel@vanquo.pezone.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: _FORTIFY_SOURCE by default? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: _FORTIFY_SOURCE by default?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 2012-09-16 at 00:41 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: > > _FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 appears to be the default for package building on many > > Linux distributions now, as part of harding or security options. But we > > often hear about problems related to this only when we hand the source > > over to the packagers. So I think we might as well add this to our > > standard compilation options, for example in src/include/port/linux.h. > > What do you think? > > Doesn't seem like a good idea to me to add platform-specific options > with unspecified effects to platform-independent upstream sources. It's effectively a warning option, and we end up fixing all the warnings anyway, so I don't see the point of deferring that effort. We could rephrase this request as, how about adding this new warning option, it's occasionally useful -- which we frequently do. We add platform-specific warning and optimization options in many places, and I don't think this is much different.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: