In article <20070531220234.0B31CAFD08@thoreau.thistledown.com.au>,
Simon Burge  <simonb@NetBSD.org> wrote:
>Elad Efrat wrote:
>
>> also, where is the consensus of the class of programs to protect with
>> USE_FORT taken from? and what's the reason for it?
>
>While talking about this change, it is too late to change the option
>name to "USE_FORTIFY"?  I can't see any reason for using the abbreviated
>"FORT" in the name.

I am fine with that.

christos