cendres at videotron.ca
Fri Jan 2 20:40:23 PST 2004
On January 2, 2004 11:24 pm, Archaic wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 10:52:44PM -0500, ashes wrote:
> > I can agree with good reasons to keep fsf binutils.
> What about the test errors. I know you've mentioned using
> -fno-stack-protector cures one or more, but does it fix all? If not, is
> there a patch that will fix them? IIRC, binutils has a static linking
> bug. How is that going to be resolved, or is it of any real concern?
I just built binutils with -fstack-protector-all, and -fno-stack-protector in
make check, and got 0 errors. New protector patch will be ready tommorrow, 2
new hunks in an earlier post. I lost 2 errors from gcc's make check also,
leaving 3 total remaining, which isn't too bad for gcc, and this might get
better if I do make check with -fno-stack-protector, or track down the
problems and patch the makefile if it comes down to that.
More information about the hlfs-dev