Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 11:12:51PM +0100, Farkas Levente wrote:
> Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 02:31:46PM +0100, Farkas Levente wrote:
>>> Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 10:42:56PM +0100, Farkas Levente wrote:
>>>>> hi,
>>>>> what was the reason to not add -fstack-protector to mingw's
cflags?
>>>>> i didn't see the reason.
>>>> It didn't work -- at least in the version of GCC that I tried it
with
>>>> originally. IIRC compiled OK, but there was a missing symbol when
>>>> linking. Maybe it does work now. I haven't tested it recently.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, we are all away until Jan 2nd ~ 5th, so don't expect much to
>>>> happen before next week.
>>> what's not compile? gcc or any given package?
>> It does in fact appear to work now. Does this mean that our C flags
>> are identical to the standard Fedora C flags?
> almost. i'd like to be as little different as possible. so the only
> difference in this case would be the mms...
> would you change flags in the filesystem macro?
I forgot about the bitfields flag. However it seems we can do this ...
%define _mingw32_cflags %{__global_cflags} -mms-bitfields
may be it cab be even better then the current ones.
--
Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!"