Re: [committed] exec-stack warning for test which wants executable stacks

> 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

Re: [committed] exec-stack warning for test which wants executable stacks

> 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

Re: [committed] exec-stack warning for test which wants executable stacks

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

Re: [committed] exec-stack warning for test which wants executable stacks

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

Re: [committed] exec-stack warning for test which wants executable stacks

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

Re: [committed] exec-stack warning for test which wants executable stacks

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

Re: [committed] exec-stack warning for test which wants executable stacks

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

Re: [committed] exec-stack warning for test which wants executable stacks

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

Re: [committed] exec-stack warning for test which wants executable stacks

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

[committed] exec-stack warning for test which wants executable stacks

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