Re: MIT discovered issue with gcc
On 27/11/13 23:37, David L. Craig wrote:
> On 13Nov27:1423+1100, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>
>> On 27/11/13 13:49, David L. Craig wrote:
>
>>> On 13Nov26:1545-0500, David L. Craig wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 13Nov26:1437-0500, Mark Haase wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Therefore, a Linux distribution has 2 choices: (1) wait for upstream
>>>>> patches for bugs/vulnerabilities as they are found, or (2) recompile all
>>>>> packages with optimizations disabled. I don't think proposal #2 would get
>>>>> very far...
>>>>
>>>> Well, there's always -O1 as opposed to no optimization.
>>>> BTW, -O1 is the minimum permitted for making gcc or glibc,
>>>> I forget which.
>>>
>>> I'm rebuilding glibc 2.18 now with -O1 after it refused -O0,
>>> but binutils 2.23.2, gcc 4.8.1, and g++ 4.8.1 are fine with
>>> -O0.
>>
>> And what was the result of poptck (STACK) when you tested them?
>
> I haven't gotten that far yet, and it may be a while, since I want
> to verify the internal tests and checks first but expect and dejagnu
> aren't building using the deoptimized binaries (I'm using LFS 7.4
> stable). So perhaps someone way ahead of me with LLVM/CLANG would
> like to report on this behavior.
>
I was hoping you'd do the work for me. (please)
:)
Kind regards.
Reply to: