On 8/31/22 17:49, Jeff Law wrote: > > > On 8/22/2022 3:39 AM, Martin Liška wrote: >> On 4/28/22 18:10, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote: >>> As I mentioned in the original thread, my change to pr94157_0 was an >>> attempt to avoid these warnings by passing a magic flag to the linker. Of >>> course we may not be using GNU ld. Or we may be on a non-elf target where >>> the flag I used doesn't exist. Or we may even be on a ELF target where >>> those bits weren't added to the linker (frv). Furthermore, we need fixes >>> to all the nested function tests as well. >>> >>> So even though I initially resisted pruning the warning, that seems like >>> the best course of action. So this patch removes my recent change to >>> pr94157_0 and instead uses our pruning facilities. >>> >>> I'll be pushing this to the trunk and gcc-12 branch. >>> >>> Jeff >> Hello. >> >> I noticed this patch during my GCC test-suite run with mold linker. As you >> likely now, the linker defaults >> to non-executable stack and so one sees test-suite crashes (not only >> warnings) [1]. >> >> So the question is if we want to explicitly fix all tests that rely on >> exectack? Or is it something >> we can assume as it's what GNU linkers do? >> >> List of affected tests: >> https://gist.githubusercontent.com/marxin/aadb75408a5a7867bf9fb26e879ce4c4/raw/aff2a0e4559e2dba8ea358520ca836eda6e7dc70/gistfile1.txt > The problem I ran into was that there wasn't a good way to determine what to > do, even if we know the test was going to need execstack. We can't just > blindly pass the magic flag to the linker -- at the least that would need to > be conditional on the linker being used as well as the target as some of the > ELF targets don't have the linker infrastructure. And given that the linker > can vary across gnu-ld, gold, mold, it's a rats nest.
Makes sense. So far the simplest approach seems to me modifying mold and allowing execstack. Unfortunately, the author does not want to introduce a new configure option. Martin > > jeff >
