This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: why Glibc does not build with clang?
- From: Andreas Schwab <schwab at linux-m68k dot org>
- To: Rich Felker <dalias at libc dot org>
- Cc: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>, Konstantin Serebryany <konstantin dot s dot serebryany at gmail dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 18:11:50 +0200
- Subject: Re: why Glibc does not build with clang?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAGQ9bdw135gBO+cTQx3Ws1GrRgFsi8-j=Y_mZ=ixebpPzB4gXw at mail dot gmail dot com> <20140523214019 dot DA9FF2C3975 at topped-with-meat dot com> <20140524142902 dot GP507 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx> <874n0fi6ac dot fsf at igel dot home> <20140524145139 dot GQ507 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx>
Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> writes:
> On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 04:46:03PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> writes:
>>
>> > Nested functions are a feature that fundamentally requires producing
>> > an insecure executable/library (executable-stack flag)
>>
>> Only if you pass the address of it out of the containing function.
>
> That's my "_except_ in cases where the compiler optimizes out that
> need."
That's not the exception, that's the rule. If you never take the
address of the nested function you never need a trampoline.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."