Questions about trampolines

[Marc Espie]

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:25:34PM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Robert Dewar wrote:
> 
> > I have certainly seen it used, but you may well be right that it is
> > seldom used. It is certainly reasonable to consider removing this
> > extension from C and C++. Anyone using that feature? Or know anyone
> > who is.

> Nested functions are used in the glibc dynamic linker.  I'm not sure why, 
> and they may be inline nested functions whose addresses are never taken.

> The extension is not present in GNU C++, only in GNU C.

Well, Andreas Schwab seems to think this is no longer the case.

I don't want to dive into the glibc mess, thanks god, but if the dynamic
linker is implemented like dynamic linkers I know, it means any binary
using a dynamic linker that uses trampolines will lose any kind of stack
protection on some badly designed architectures, like say, i386...