FS#70240 - pacman should provide preprocessor options in CPPFLAGS
Attached to Project:
Arch Linux
Opened by Vladimir (_v_l) - Wednesday, 31 March 2021, 01:22 GMT
Last edited by Eli Schwartz (eschwartz) - Wednesday, 31 March 2021, 02:54 GMT
Opened by Vladimir (_v_l) - Wednesday, 31 March 2021, 01:22 GMT
Last edited by Eli Schwartz (eschwartz) - Wednesday, 31 March 2021, 02:54 GMT
|
Details
Description: pacman-5.2.2-3 comes with update
/etc/makepkg.conf where *FLAGS options are changed so now
only CFLAGS is set. Now it has
'-Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS' but gcc(1)
recommends to avoid usage of this option (quote: "The
preprocessor's direct interface is undocumented and subject
to change, so whenever possible you should avoid using -Wp
and let the driver handle the options instead"). Shouldn't
these two options be set in CPPFLAGS?
|
This task depends upon
Closed by Eli Schwartz (eschwartz)
Wednesday, 31 March 2021, 02:54 GMT
Reason for closing: Won't implement
Additional comments about closing: The use of -Wp, in CFLAGS is an intentional change which is
a) stable
b) required to sanely handle the fiddly bits of toolchains
Wednesday, 31 March 2021, 02:54 GMT
Reason for closing: Won't implement
Additional comments about closing: The use of -Wp, in CFLAGS is an intentional change which is
a) stable
b) required to sanely handle the fiddly bits of toolchains
Allan responded:
> I'll also add, -Wp,-D... is used by Fedora/RedHat and other major contributors to the toolchain. It is so widely used that I have seen configure and test scripts disable fortify_source by explicitly looking for -Wp,-D... (it is very common in the toolchain).
> As this is the standard, we should go with it despite it no being correct. I added CPPFLAGS to makepkg in a push for correctness and it is just more trouble that it is worth.
The reason provided is IMO very compelling... this is not being done without a thorough understanding of the reasoning.