Re: toolchain/54463: FORTIFY_SOURCE won't work with clang.

[Pedro Giffuni <pfg%FreeBSD.org@localhost>]

The following reply was made to PR toolchain/54463; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Pedro Giffuni <pfg%FreeBSD.org@localhost>
To: gnats-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost, toolchain-manager%netbsd.org@localhost,
 gnats-admin%netbsd.org@localhost, netbsd-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost
Cc: 
Subject: Re: toolchain/54463: FORTIFY_SOURCE won't work with clang.
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2019 16:31:52 -0500

 On 17/08/2019 13:20, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
 > The following reply was made to PR toolchain/54463; it has been noted by GNATS.
 >
 > From: Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%bec.de@localhost>
 > To: gnats-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost
 > Cc: toolchain-manager%netbsd.org@localhost, gnats-admin%netbsd.org@localhost,
 > 	netbsd-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost
 > Subject: Re: toolchain/54463: FORTIFY_SOURCE won't work with clang.
 > Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2019 20:04:12 +0200
 >
 >   On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 01:20:00AM +0000, pfg%FreeBSD.org@localhost wrote:
 >   > However, clang does behave very different from GCC and can't really support FORTIFY_SOURCE.
 >   
 >   Well, we have various tests in the test suite and I know that they work
 >   with clang. I'm therefore a bit puzzled by this report, especially since
 >   it doesn't actually contain anything actionable.
 >   
 
 Hmm ... even more puzzling, FreeBSD has the same tests but we don't 
 support FORTIFY_SOURCE at all, so at this time I have no idea what we 
 are testing :-/.
 
 I found an old posting (2015), that explains the problem:
 
 http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2015-November/045846.html
 
 It may be that __builtin_object_size got fixed in recent versions of 
 clang, but there are surely differences to account for, like the lack of 
 __builtin_va_arg_*.
 
 Perhaps NetBSD's FORTIFY_SOURCE ignores any compiler like clang that 
 reports itself as old as GCC 4.2. In that case perhaps its best to just 
 close the PR.
 
 Pedro.