Re: _FORTIFY_SOURCE by default?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: _FORTIFY_SOURCE by default?
Date: 2012-09-16 15:26:02
Message-ID: 11751.1347809162@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 09/16/2012 12:41 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Doesn't seem like a good idea to me to add platform-specific options
>> with unspecified effects to platform-independent upstream sources.

> Might be worth having a buildfarm animal or two building with it, say by
> setting CFLAGS before configure?

Possibly, but only if we actually pay attention to build warnings on
those animals.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2012-09-16 15:52:54 Re: Patch to include c.h
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2012-09-16 14:36:13 Re: _FORTIFY_SOURCE by default?