This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils 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: [PATCH] PT_GNU_STACK


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ian Lance Taylor wrote:

> Because gcc would generate the call to it when it generated the
> trampoline code, just as it already does on several architectures.
> (For example, grep for TRANSFER_FROM_TRAMPOLINE in gcc/config/i386.)
> [...]

> The cost is irritatingly high.  I object to this approach without more
> consideration.

How can you write these two things in the same mail?  If anything is
high, it's the cost of dynamically changing the permissions in the
generated code.  Any runtime cost in unacceptable while a few more bytes
in object files is absolutely no problem whatsoever.  There are no
"irritatingly high" costs whatsoever.  The object file size varies more
for each non-trivial file if you use a different compiler version.  We
are talking about 8 bytes in the not section plus the section header
table entry.

- -- 
- --------------.                        ,-.            444 Castro Street
Ulrich Drepper \    ,-----------------'   \ Mountain View, CA 94041 USA
Red Hat         `--' drepper at redhat.com `---------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+0U/B2ijCOnn/RHQRAtQXAKCFiKniq8gF4SYgjQpkGMcxV7fdLwCbBLbD
m2JNA6HdaXeDlLawsMfDiKM=
=/vOA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


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