2015-04-06 18:28 GMT+03:00 Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com>: > On 04/06/2015 09:17 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >>> >>> >>> To tell the truth, I can't figure out what this means from a user >>> perspective. How does a user know whether the linker option is >>> being ignored, or if they have a new enough linker? If the linker >>> available at configuration time doesn't support the option, does >>> that mean the option will never be passed and users will never know >>> that there are gaping holes in the pointer bounds checking? >>> >>> My suggestion would be to pass the option unconditionally and make >>> the documentation say something like >> >> >> This option was rejected. > > Right. There really isn't a good option here because we don't have the > infrastructure to query the linker's capabilities at link time. > > Though I do wonder if we could issue a warning in the case where the > configure test indicated -z bndplt was not supported.
I thought about such possibility. Just don't see a good place for that. Probably introduce some WARNING_SPEC which targets may define to issue a driver warning? Ilya > > It'd obviously mean a link warning every time an end user tried to use that > toolchain to create a DSO or executable with MPX protection. But that may > be better than silently leaving some code unprotected. > > > Jeff >
