etter since we'd like most tests to fail if somehow their stacks were
executable.
Committed to the trunk.
Jeff
commit 6b7441a46c771aa6ecdc0c8ed96197417d036b9a
Author: Jeff Law
Date: Sun Apr 24 13:38:14 2022 -0400
[committed] exec-stack warning for test which wants executa
On 4/24/22 19:42, Jeff Law via Gcc wrote:
> About a week ago many targets started failing pr94157_0.c test like this
> (bfin-elf, but many other targets are also affected):
>
>> spawn -ignore SIGHUP /home/jlaw/test/obj/bfin-elf/obj/gcc/gcc/xgcc
>> -B/home/jlaw/test/obj/bfin-elf/obj/gcc/gcc/ c_lt
On 4/25/2022 6:56 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
I used -z execstack rather than --no-warn-execstack as the former is recognized
by older versions of ld, but the latter is a new option.
Thanks for it.
Unfortunately, I should have looked at the other failures that have
popped up over the last wee
Hi Jeff,
I used -z execstack rather than --no-warn-execstack as the former is recognized
by older versions of ld, but the latter is a new option.
Thanks for it.
Unfortunately, I should have looked at the other failures that have popped up over the last week. Essentially all the nested functio
On 4/25/2022 8:42 AM, Nick Clifton wrote:
Hi Jeff,
I used -z execstack rather than --no-warn-execstack as the former
is recognized by older versions of ld, but the latter is a new option.
Thanks for it.
Unfortunately, I should have looked at the other failures that have
popped up over the
Hi Jeff,
Just FYI - I am also looking at adding in another warning. This time for
when the linker creates a PT_LOAD segment which has all of the RWX flags
set. At the moment my testing seems to show that it only causes problems
when a custom linker script is used that defines its own pr
On 4/25/2022 9:26 AM, Nick Clifton wrote:
Hi Jeff,
Just FYI - I am also looking at adding in another warning. This
time for
when the linker creates a PT_LOAD segment which has all of the RWX
flags
set. At the moment my testing seems to show that it only causes
problems
when a cus
On 4/25/2022 8:37 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 4/25/2022 6:56 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
I used -z execstack rather than --no-warn-execstack as the former is
recognized by older versions of ld, but the latter is a new option.
Thanks for it.
Unfortunately, I should have looked at the other failure
> From: Jeff Law via Binutils
> Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 17:30:59 +0200
> On 4/25/2022 9:26 AM, Nick Clifton wrote:
> > Hi Jeff,
> >
> > Just FYI - I am also looking at adding in another warning. This
> > time for
> > when the linker creates a PT_LOAD segment which has all of the RWX
> > fla
> From: Hans-Peter Nilsson
> Date: Thu, 26 May 2022 03:17:01 +0200
Regarding setting the default for the RWX-segment warning
per-target:
> How about the usual method, a line in the ld emulparams
> file for the target?
JFTR: no extra infrastructure bits needed. I found the
right spot, just a tr
10 matches
Mail list logo