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]

Re: Give a better error for PCH with exec-shield-randomize


Ian Lance Taylor <ian@wasabisystems.com> writes:

> Geoff Keating <geoffk@desire.geoffk.org> writes:
> 
> > I know that host-darwin.c imposes no measurable overhead on gcc's load
> > time or its performance when PCH is not used, but I had to talk to
> > several kernel and linker people before settling on that particular
> > design (and even then I measured the resulting performance before I
> > really believed that it would work).  I think you will need to do the
> > same amount of research before you can come up with something similar
> > for linux.
> 
> My personal resources are quite limited.  I don't have multiple
> architectures, and I don't have the time to run multiple kernel
> versions.  (I'm not doing this for work, of course--Wasabi is a NetBSD
> company.)
> 
> My vote would be to install something along the lines of my patch,
> which at least is a big step forward in that the testsuite works.
> Then we can find out what else breaks, and how to fix it.

I'd be happy with this except that what I expect will happen is that
we'll end up with user bug reports about "when I compiled my
100,000-line PCH, and used it on my particular system, I got a crash,
for a week, until something changed and then it worked again".  That
is, there'll be no way to find out what broke because the situations
won't be reproducible.  At least now we can see the breakage.

However, if someone who actually uses linux for development would like
to approve the patch, that's fine with me.

-- 
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org>


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]