[PATCH libevdev 2/2] Reintroduce -fstack-protector

[Peter Hutterer]

On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 11:21:08AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-09-13 at 17:15 +0200, David Herrmann wrote:
> 
> > Thanks for tracking it down. I wonder why it didn't fail for anybody
> > else, though. More importantly, we don't do static linking or similar
> > in tools/, so why doesn't ld correctly link and resolve the symbols?
> 
> I think this may come down to whether or not libc.so itself is built
> with stack protector or not.
> 
> > Anyway, it's missing your Signed-off-by line, could you provide it as
> > a response here? (same rules as for the kernel apply)
> 
> Attached.
> 

> From e7b6270e2165386b0ab82bd68709616a12c584b1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Colin Walters <walters at verbum.org>
> Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 10:58:53 -0400
> Subject: [PATCH] build: Also honor CFLAGS in tools/
> 
> This fixes the build in gnome-continuous.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Colin Walters <walters at verbum.org>
> ---
>  tools/Makefile.am |    1 +
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/Makefile.am b/tools/Makefile.am
> index 931a7d2..1197a7c 100644
> --- a/tools/Makefile.am
> +++ b/tools/Makefile.am
> @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
>  noinst_PROGRAMS = libevdev-events
>  
>  AM_CPPFLAGS = -I$(top_srcdir)/libevdev
> +AM_CFLAGS = $(GCC_CFLAGS)

any specific reason you chose AM_CFLAGS instead of appending to AM_CPPFLAGS?
just wondering if that was intentional, because I'm somewhat worried that
using one in the library and one in the tools will lead to different
results (e.g. if we use -D in the future).

I found that the difference between CFLAGS and CPPFLAGS isn't always
honoured as it should, so CPPFLAGS is the lowest common denominator.

Cheers,
   Peter

>  libevdev_ldadd = $(top_builddir)/libevdev/libevdev.la
>  
>  libevdev_events_SOURCES = libevdev-events.c
> -- 
> 1.7.1
>