krytarowski added a comment. In D56554#1353368 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56554#1353368>, @ruiu wrote:
> The absence of PT_GNU_STACK segment makes stack area executable on systems > that recognizes PT_GNU_STACK segment. So, I think if `-z execstack` is > specified, we should omit PT_GNU_STACK segment rather than adding it, which I > think you guys want. If we do that, it seems `-z nognustack` is a redundant > option. That option name is unfortunate (you don't really mean you want an > executable stack area), but that's I think still better than adding an option > that is very similar to an existing feature. If we are going to change the meaning of `-z execstack`, can we rename the option in lld? Probably to `-z gnustack` vs `-z nognustack`, probably there is no other use-case than RWX->RW protection change. Systems like fuchsia don't need/want it either. FreeBSD&Linux recognize this ELF segment. Repository: rLLD LLVM Linker CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D56554/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D56554 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
