[Bug fortran/71729] -Wl,-z,noexecstack Segmentation fault

[zbeekman at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71729

Zaak  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zbeekman at gmail dot com

--- Comment #3 from Zaak  ---
> It means i have to submit the bug to mpich developers that add this flag in 
> the alias mpif90 ?

Well I'm guessing that it's the fedora package system that's adding the
-Wl,-z,noexecstack to the mpich wrapper... but I could be wrong, it could be
MPICH itself. But either way, the bug is with MPICH or the fedora package of
MPICH.

[Bug fortran/71729] -Wl,-z,noexecstack Segmentation fault

[elhombrefr at yahoo dot fr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71729

--- Comment #2 from Pierre Navaro  ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Don't do it then.  -z noexecstack asserts there are no trampolines in the
> code, but your code does need trampolines and thus executable stack, because
> you are passing address of a nested (contained) subroutine/function to
> another and not optimizing, so it is not inlined.

It means i have to submit the bug to mpich developers that add this flag in the
alias mpif90 ?

[Bug fortran/71729] -Wl,-z,noexecstack Segmentation fault

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71729

Jakub Jelinek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
 CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
 Resolution|--- |INVALID

--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek  ---
Don't do it then.  -z noexecstack asserts there are no trampolines in the code,
but your code does need trampolines and thus executable stack, because you are
passing address of a nested (contained) subroutine/function to another and not
optimizing, so it is not inlined.