News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on GCC's new fortification level: The gains and costs.

Re:GCC's new fortification level: The gains and costs by saagarjha on Sunday September 18, 2022 @04:45PM (#32891353)
Unfortunately not much in the way of performance measurements :(
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:GCC's new fortification level: The gains and costs by siddhesh on Sunday September 18, 2022 @06:03PM (#32891907)
It's on my TODO list. Watch out for Fedora change proposals for (hopefully) Fedora 38.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:GCC's new fortification level: The gains and costs by gavinray on Sunday September 18, 2022 @06:40PM (#32892165)
What if you develop inside of a Fedora 38 Docker container

  FROM quay.io/fedora/fedora:38
  RUN dnf install -y <bunch of tools>
Got any useful tips or flags to enable that're bleeding edge?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:GCC's new fortification level: The gains and costs by siddhesh on Sunday September 18, 2022 @07:20PM (#32892405)
It's not a runtime flag, you'll have to patch redhat-rpm-config to use _FORTIFY_SOURCE=3 instead of 2 and then build packages with it.

Of course if you only want to build your application with _FORTIFY_SOURCE=3, you can do it right away even on Fedora 36. The Fedora change will be to build the distribution (or at least a subset of packages) with _FORGIFY_SOURCE=3.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:GCC's new fortification level: The gains and costs by westurner on Monday September 19, 2022 @01:20AM (#32894555)
What would be the impact of making _FORTIFY_SOURCE=3 a Fedora-specific Make default (which doesn't apply to CMake or Ninja because those are different defaults, which are for GCC not LLVM/Clang anyway)?
[ Parent | on HN ]