From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 275933858400; Thu, 30 Dec 2021 02:27:33 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 275933858400
From: "noloader at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug driver/103863] We need a warning for loss of no-exec stacks
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2021 02:27:33 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: driver
X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: noloader at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-103863-4-axy9ClqUeV@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-103863-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-103863-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2021 02:27:33 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D103863

--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey Walton <noloader at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I think the warning needs to be implemented in the linker rather than in =
GCC
> because the linker is what decides if there are executable stacks are nee=
ded
> or not.

Thanks Andrew.

I thought about a linker warning, too. Do they have to be mutually exclusive
(warning in compiler vs warning in linker)?

I also asked the Binutil folks for some feedback:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D103863.=