<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Am 11.03.2009 11:52, schrieb Carl-Daniel Hailfinger:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:49B797ED.8090203@gmx.net" type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">All of them:
Signed-off-by: Patrick Georgi <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:patrick.georgi@coresystems.de"><patrick.georgi@coresystems.de></a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
AFAICS --scan-build and --nostackprotect can be specified at the same
time, interacting badly.
</pre>
</blockquote>
That's possible. The nostackprotect change happens to enable
nostackprotect with crosscompilers (without it, the crosscompiler test
overwrites CC)<br>
<br>
In the code, first -fno-stack-protector gets added, then it's pushed
into the wrapper script (also necessary for "gcc -m32"), as scan-build
doesn't like CC="gcc -arguments". That really looks like it's doing the
right thing.<br>
I tried a build right now, and it seems to work. (but on that system,
nostackprotect doesn't fix otherwise broken builds)<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:49B797ED.8090203@gmx.net" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Should we name the parameter "scan-build" or "scanbuild"?
</pre>
</blockquote>
I chose scan-build because that's what the tool is called. On the other
hand, --nostackprotect strips the "-", too.<br>
I honestly have no opinion on that :-)<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:49B797ED.8090203@gmx.net" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
If the two points above are resolved, the whole patchset is
Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net"><c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net></a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
Thanks. I'll wait a bit for more opinions on the parameter name, but as
the short name stays stable, changing the long version later-on
shouldn't be too much of a problem.<br>
<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Patrick<br>
</body>
</html>