This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Why don't we just FIX the damn vthunk problem?
- To: "Martin v. Loewis" <martin at mira dot isdn dot cs dot tu-berlin dot de>
- Subject: Re: Why don't we just FIX the damn vthunk problem?
- From: Alexandre Oliva <oliva at dcc dot unicamp dot br>
- Date: 01 Mar 1999 07:41:48 -0300
- Cc: jason at cygnus dot com, jce2 at po dot cwru dot edu, egcs at cygnus dot com, egcs-bugs at cygnus dot com
- References: <36DA0D0C.275599F1.cygnus.egcs@po.cwru.edu> <u9pv6t91n4.fsf@yorick.cygnus.com> <199903011015.LAA00483@mira.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de>
On Mar 1, 1999, "Martin v. Loewis" <martin@mira.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
>> The static way, which EDG and IBM use, is to write out separate [cd]tor
>> vtables along with the normal ones and pass them down into base [cd]tors.
>> Obviously, this means you use more space in the executable.
> [...]
>> Any other ideas?
> This is the solution which I'd favour.
Same here. I don't like dynamic thunks because on some hosts the
stack is not executable, for security, and it wouldn't be beautiful to
get bug reports about crashes caused by trying to run code out of the
stack. I myself have spend several weeks wondering why only I got
some failures in the C testsuite before finding out they relied on
trampolines for nested functions and the sysadm had disabled execution
of stack :-(
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.dcc.unicamp.br/~oliva aoliva@{acm.org,computer.org}
oliva@{dcc.unicamp.br,gnu.org,egcs.cygnus.com,samba.org}
Instituto de Computação, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, SP, Brasil