[libvirt PATCH 2/4] m4: enable -fstack-protector-strong on mingw

[Laine Stump]

On 7/22/20 1:21 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> Historically we avoided -fstack-protector* since it resulted in a broken
> build on Mingw. In GCC 10 in Fedora though, we have the opposite problem,
> getting a broken build if we don't enable one of the -fstack-protector*
> options. This also works in GCC 9, so we don't need to worry about the
> old brokeness which evidentally got fixed at some time without noticing.


...and I guess there's no "super old" mingw releases that we need to 
worry about, since it's always the mingw on the current release of 
Fedora that's used (did I get that right?)


Reviewed-by: Laine Stump <laine at redhat.com>


>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange at redhat.com>
> ---
>   m4/virt-compile-warnings.m4 | 4 +---
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/m4/virt-compile-warnings.m4 b/m4/virt-compile-warnings.m4
> index d3538d59f8..d171d09991 100644
> --- a/m4/virt-compile-warnings.m4
> +++ b/m4/virt-compile-warnings.m4
> @@ -169,13 +169,11 @@ AC_DEFUN([LIBVIRT_COMPILE_WARNINGS],[
>       gl_WARN_ADD([-Wframe-larger-than=262144], [RELAXED_FRAME_LIMIT_CFLAGS])
>   
>       # Extra special flags
> -    dnl -fstack-protector stuff passes gl_WARN_ADD with gcc
> -    dnl on Mingw32, but fails when actually used
>       case $host in
>          aarch64-*-*)
>          dnl "error: -fstack-protector not supported for this target [-Werror]"
>          ;;
> -       *-*-linux*)
> +       *-*-linux* | *-*-mingw*)
>          dnl Prefer -fstack-protector-strong if it's available.
>          dnl There doesn't seem to be great overhead in adding
>          dnl -fstack-protector-all instead of -fstack-protector.