On 4/29/2014 19:23, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:37 AM, John Marino <gnu...@marino.st> wrote: >> >> Does anyone have any issues with this set of patches to add support for >> the DragonFly targets? It's a blocker for other patches of mine that >> have a more general benefit, but this (relatively simple) one has to go >> in first. > > It's inconvenient, but patches are much more likely to be reviewed > when they cover a separate part of the tree, as different people > maintain different parts. I expect your libitm and libcilkrts could > be approved trivially if you send them separately.
Hi Ian, I was trying to identify specific people (e.g. an libitm person) and have them approve specific files since they are trivial as you saw. I decided to keep the patch set as an atomic unit because it needs to be committed as a unit, and also because I assumed it provided the necessary context. > The change to include/libiberty.h is fine. thanks! > I don't understand the benefit of libgcc/enable-execute-stack-bsd.c. > The code seems the same as the existing > libgcc/enable-execute-stack-mprotect.c. All you are changing is > omitting need_enable_exec_stack. If you just drop the FreeBSD > constructor, you will get the behaviour you want. With the caveat that this patch is over 2 years old, I just took a look at both files. I would have not needed to modify this file at all for DragonFly. In fact, I seem to recall that I didn't modify it for DragonFly, but rather for FreeBSD. If I had to guess, it would be that I found mprotect() was needed regardless of value of kern.stackprot. I must have traced some test failures back to this. Which I guess that's what you mean - just delete the block between "#if defined __FreeBSD__" and the next #elif which should be equivalent. I can tweak the patch set to do that. And what about the dl_iterate_phdr changes? Do they look good to you? Thanks, John
