Re: MIT discovered issue with gcc
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?
Kind regards
Reply to: