--stack in ld? (and gcc's --fstack-check?)

--stack in ld? (and gcc's --fstack-check?)

[Dan Kegel]

I'm trying to use --fstack-check in gcc, and from what I can tell,
programs compiled with --fstack-check generate a signal when
they try to extend the stack.   Soooo, I read the ld man page,
and found a nifty --stack option to set both the reserved and
the committed stack size.  That should allow me to control
the size of the stack beyond which I get a signal.

Only my ld doesn't seem to recognize --stack.  The version I'm using is
GNU ld version 2.13.90.0.2 20020802
(the one that comes with red hat 8).

Is --stack obsolete?
- Dan

-- 
Dan Kegel
http://www.kegel.com
http://counter.li.org/cgi-bin/runscript/display-person.cgi?user=78045

Re: --stack in ld? (and gcc's --fstack-check?)

[Ian Lance Taylor]

Dan Kegel <dank@kegel.com> writes:

> I'm trying to use --fstack-check in gcc, and from what I can tell,
> programs compiled with --fstack-check generate a signal when
> they try to extend the stack.   Soooo, I read the ld man page,
> and found a nifty --stack option to set both the reserved and
> the committed stack size.  That should allow me to control
> the size of the stack beyond which I get a signal.
> 
> Only my ld doesn't seem to recognize --stack.  The version I'm using is
> GNU ld version 2.13.90.0.2 20020802
> (the one that comes with red hat 8).
> 
> Is --stack obsolete?

If you look more closely, you'll see that --stack is documented in a
section entitled ``options specific to i386 PE targets.''  That is, it
is only supported on Windows.

Ian

Re: --stack in ld? (and gcc's --fstack-check?)

[Dan Kegel]

Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Dan Kegel <dank@kegel.com> writes:
>>Is --stack obsolete?
> 
> If you look more closely, you'll see that --stack is documented in a
> section entitled ``options specific to i386 PE targets.''  That is, it
> is only supported on Windows.

I *thought* it sounded kind of windows-ish.  Thanks!

(I don't know if the man page could be improved to handle
the google mentality.  Putting "windows only" next to
each such option might do it, but it'd be incredibly messy.)
- Dan

-- 
Dan Kegel
http://www.kegel.com
http://counter.li.org/cgi-bin/runscript/display-person.cgi?user=78045