https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106671
--- Comment #17 from Wilco <wilco at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Mark Brown from comment #13) > The kernel hasn't got any problem with BTI as far as I am aware - when built > with clang we run the kernel with BTI enabled since clang does just insert a > BTI C at the start of every function, and GCC works fine so long as we don't > get any out of range jumps being generated. The issue is that we don't have > anything to insert veneers in the case where section placement puts static > functions into a distant enough part of memory to need an indirect jump but > GCC has decided to omit the landing pad. Is the kernel already larger than 128 MBytes .text? Or do people do weird stuff with section placement that causes branches to be out of range?
