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] |