This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.
| Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
|---|---|---|
| Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
| Other format: | [Raw text] | |
Geoff Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org> writes:
> It seems like this is a fairly complex and fragile workaround for an
> OS bug. Is there some reason you can't just fix your kernel? If not,
> the autoconf test for HAVE_MINCORE should be extended to test for the
> bug and ignore mincore() if it doesn't work. Perhaps you could just
> test for linux in general, since the whole mincore() stuff itself
> was written to work around a Solaris "feature".
>
> This code:
>
> + /* A Linux kernel with exec-shield-randomize set to a non-zero
> + value won't work. Give a nice error message for this common
> + case. */
> + {
> + FILE *pf;
> +
> + pf = fopen ("/proc/sys/kernel/exec-shield-randomize", "r");
> + if (pf != NULL)
>
> is Linux-specific code in the generic part of the compiler, and should
> not be there.
It's even more specific than Linux-specific. The exec-shield patch is
AFAIK not part of any official Linus blessed Linux kernel. You get
this behaviour only with a patch that Ingo Molnar has written.
Andreas
--
Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj
SuSE Linux AG, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
Attachment:
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
| Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
|---|---|---|
| Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |