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] |
On 04/06/2015 09:17 AM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
Right. There really isn't a good option here because we don't have the infrastructure to query the linker's capabilities at link time.To tell the truth, I can't figure out what this means from a user perspective. How does a user know whether the linker option is being ignored, or if they have a new enough linker? If the linker available at configuration time doesn't support the option, does that mean the option will never be passed and users will never know that there are gaping holes in the pointer bounds checking? My suggestion would be to pass the option unconditionally and make the documentation say something likeThis option was rejected.
Though I do wonder if we could issue a warning in the case where the configure test indicated -z bndplt was not supported.
It'd obviously mean a link warning every time an end user tried to use that toolchain to create a DSO or executable with MPX protection. But that may be better than silently leaving some code unprotected.
Jeff
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |