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_lto_pr94157_0.o >> -fdiagnostics-plain-output -dumpbase -O0 -fipa-vrp -flto -Wa,--noexecstack >> -Wa,--noexecstack -Wa,--execstack -Wa,--execstack -Wa,--execstack >> -Wa,--execstack -Wa,--execstack -Wa,--execstack -Wa,--execstack >> -Wa,--execstack -Wa,--execstack -Wa,--execstack -Wa,--execstack >> -Wa,--execstack -Wa,--execstack -Wa,--execstack -msim -Wl,-wrap,exit >> -Wl,-wrap,_exit -Wl,-wrap,main -Wl,-wrap,abort -Wl,gcc_tg.o -o >> gcc-dg-lto-pr94157-01.exe^M >> /home/jlaw/test/obj/bfin-elf/installed/bfin-elf/bin/ld: warning: >> /tmp/ccfJUEvZ.ltrans0.ltrans.o: requires executable stack (because the >> .note.GNU-stack section is executable)^M >> FAIL: gcc.dg/lto/pr94157 c_lto_pr94157_0.o-c_lto_pr94157_0.o link, -O0 >> -fipa-vrp -flto -Wa,--noexecstack -Wa,--noexecstack -Wa,--execstack >> -Wa,--execstack -Wa,--execstack -Wa,--execstack -Wa,--execstack >> -Wa,--execstack -Wa,--execstack -Wa,--execstack -Wa,--execstack >> -Wa,--execstack -Wa,--execstack -Wa,--execstack -Wa,--execstack >> -Wa,--execstack > > This is due to a new binutils warning. This patch just suppresses the > warning for the one test where we explicitly wanted an executable stack. > > I'm guessing the repeated -Wa,--noexecstack options in this test are supposed > to trigger a buffer overflow or something similar, so I left those alone and > just appended to the argument list.
Yes. > > 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. Martin > > The other approach would have been to prune the warning, but this seemed > better since we'd like most tests to fail if somehow their stacks were > executable. > > > Committed to the trunk. > > Jeff >
