On Sun, 2006-08-13 at 00:11 -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote: > > On 8/12/06, Paul Mackerras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Albert Cahalan writes: > > > > > VM_STACK_DEFAULT_FLAGS32 is wrong. A fail-safe > > > default is important for security. If gcc on PowerPC ever > > > does generate code which puts trampolines on the stack, > > > then that can be fixed by converting to legal C code or > > > by adding the fragile marking to the defective executables. > > > Did gcc ever generate such code on PowerPC? If not, > > > then there is no reason to ever allow an executable stack. > > > > I believe it did for nested procedures in C. > > I just disassembled libgcc. You're right. Eeeeeew. > I filed a bug describing two better methods for this.
URL? -Hollis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]