RFR: JDK-8081692 Configure should verify that -fstack-protector is valid

[Tim Bell]

Magnus:

Looks good to me as well.

Tim

On 06/03/15 06:12, Erik Joelsson wrote:
> Looks good to me.
>
> /Erik
>
> On 2015-06-03 14:33, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> Not all versions of gcc support -fstack-protector. We should check 
>> that it is accepted as an argument before adding it to the flags.
>>
>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8081692
>> WebRev inline:
>>
>> diff --git a/common/autoconf/flags.m4 b/common/autoconf/flags.m4
>> --- a/common/autoconf/flags.m4
>> +++ b/common/autoconf/flags.m4
>> @@ -338,14 +338,16 @@
>>        # no adjustment
>>        ;;
>>      slowdebug )
>> -      # Add runtime stack smashing and undefined behavior checks
>> -      CFLAGS_DEBUG_OPTIONS="-fstack-protector-all --param 
>> ssp-buffer-size=1"
>> -      CXXFLAGS_DEBUG_OPTIONS="-fstack-protector-all --param 
>> ssp-buffer-size=1"
>> +      # Add runtime stack smashing and undefined behavior checks.
>> +      # Not all versions of gcc support -fstack-protector
>> +      STACK_PROTECTOR_CFLAG="-fstack-protector-all"
>> +      FLAGS_COMPILER_CHECK_ARGUMENTS([$STACK_PROTECTOR_CFLAG], [], 
>> [STACK_PROTECTOR_CFLAG=""])
>> +
>> +      CFLAGS_DEBUG_OPTIONS="$STACK_PROTECTOR_CFLAG --param 
>> ssp-buffer-size=1"
>> +      CXXFLAGS_DEBUG_OPTIONS="$STACK_PROTECTOR_CFLAG --param 
>> ssp-buffer-size=1"
>>        ;;
>>      esac
>>    fi
>> -  AC_SUBST(CFLAGS_DEBUG_OPTIONS)
>> -  AC_SUBST(CXXFLAGS_DEBUG_OPTIONS)
>>
>>    # Optimization levels
>>    if test "x$TOOLCHAIN_TYPE" = xsolstudio; then
>>
>> The AC_SUBST removal is just a bit of cleanup, we didn't use the 
>> *_DEBUG_OPTIONS in the spec files, just later on when constructing 
>> JDK_CFLAGS.
>>
>> /Magnus
>>
>