Bug 212520
Summary: | gcc ignores setarch | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Hans de Goede <hdegoede> |
Component: | gcc | Assignee: | Jakub Jelinek <jakub> |
Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | ||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | x86_64 | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2006-10-27 08:09:48 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Hans de Goede
2006-10-27 08:02:47 UTC
That's intentional, you really should use proper CFLAGS and LDFLAGS. Basing -m32/-m64 default based on environment would be very confusing e.g. when reporting bugs, would make reproducibility more difficult. Propagating $RPM_OPT_FLAGS down to all C*FLAGS is desirable for many other reasons, e.g. buffer overflow protection etc. I already was afraid this was going to get closed in this way and I understand, however fixing all circa 3000 packages in FE + FC for this is not really doable. Well I guess I'll just keep using the shell wrappers in dir not normally in PATH and add dir to PATH when building i386 binaries approach then. It is doable and very much desirable, we really shouldn't be unintentionally shipping programs built without -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2, -fstack-protector etc. I'm not aware of anything in FC that doesn't honor these unless it has a reason for it (e.g. in glibc and gcc itself), if you know about anything, feel free to file a bugreport. The problem isn't as much in CFLAGS as it is in LDFLAGS, I maintain 80 packages in FE and where nescesarry have patched them to honor RPM_OPT_FLAGS during the compile fase, but I've been doing some experimenting with building i386 only packages (lots of asm bah) on x86_64 and on many cases LDFLAGS doesn't get properly propegated. I fully agree with you that RPM_OPT_FLAGS should always be used. |