Source-Changes archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: CVS commit: src

On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 11:52:57PM +0300, Elad Efrat wrote:
> Thor Lancelot Simon 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?
> >
> >It takes a considerable amount of time to get large sets of source files
> >building cleanly with FORTIFY_SOURCE because one finds various failures
> >to conform to the C standard (non-tolerance of standard functions 
> >implemented
> >as macros in header files) and some genuine and sometimes rather complex
> >bugs (e.g. the struct ifreq problem).  My intent was to get as much value
> >for the initial investment of time as possible.
> in other words, it is planned to, as time goes by, make more parts of
> the system build with USE_FORT, correct?

RedHat builds "all core system packages" this way.  I think it's a good
idea, though I want to do some benchmarking to see if we need to provide
alternate binaries of certain libraries for people doing, e.g. numerical
computing on private networks.

Thor Lancelot Simon                           
  "All of my opinions are consistent, but I cannot present them all
   at once."    -Jean-Jacques Rousseau, On The Social Contract

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index