From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13493 invoked by alias); 29 Apr 2014 23:48:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 13419 invoked by uid 89); 29 Apr 2014 23:48:23 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS,URIBL_SBL autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-ob0-f178.google.com Received: from mail-ob0-f178.google.com (HELO mail-ob0-f178.google.com) (209.85.214.178) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 23:48:21 +0000 Received: by mail-ob0-f178.google.com with SMTP id wn1so1134479obc.9 for ; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 16:48:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=yEyPxFgbp/GdIL/Mgz06HebBDPam11khqqe3jrjN/zA=; b=i2oAPH5R3PhypQChFKKA4Lr+CaeMmx9OCQbwMrpMYZcV67yxbes8SO1MHku4SqLy+N cKww+UtnBNWyuhVUU7l0jCwnQ207EZ9qXePr0vZ+VrvGWnn4ewBW4/sLZGdonJ5RFt8M pNe/iuB51YM2g4NKg0Ga+7cWg4Hncg2ztrdFC/3q1tl5bvKve2+j/oekaSsY9Zu5IakA bkX0wVwbEbP44hz1JH2L40tdNAy+4FXbtwZzMswS6eTAdcwYD7C8Fo9ScBUOmc9EvTwy CJPLZvD8cEhNUfBz7ZyyDMXwEX5AlekPep2MLEEABWBVcj7Md+SBivMlTwpGOUIcouBB QI6Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmBDwe7O5pAqD+Bk6RSZxMA1kk+IktoFacrCSiXDfCcZxw3GT3ZUP5W4a+eBB0hi5P7npRbvoVNYouXcfGn993fD35SSWnKqtFPI/C7CntB6Sr9CHMtIKxRjayTLGkqk0zwMe5SSUbtZV9uGR0/PYXyfR+uH7bSZ7SW/7FxkKFLL2+7lqLfeeXBWZCpjyufo4M6hAGi5QW6Hmqo1GKmTxU6L9r7pw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.78.100 with SMTP id a4mr686844obx.56.1398815299926; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 16:48:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.60.118.39 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 16:48:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <535FF173.2060008@marino.st> References: <5352D100.9040108@marino.st> <53541A34.7050908@marino.st> <535FC71E.8070406@marino.st> <535FF173.2060008@marino.st> Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 00:07:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PING] Contributing new gcc targets: i386-*-dragonfly and x86-64-*-dragonfly From: Ian Lance Taylor To: John Marino Cc: gcc-patches , "libstdc++" , Binutils , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-04/txt/msg02022.txt.bz2 On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 2:37 PM, John Marino wrote: > >> I don't understand the benefit of libgcc/enable-execute-stack-bsd.c. >> The code seems the same as the existing >> libgcc/enable-execute-stack-mprotect.c. All you are changing is >> omitting need_enable_exec_stack. If you just drop the FreeBSD >> constructor, you will get the behaviour you want. > > With the caveat that this patch is over 2 years old, I just took a look > at both files. I would have not needed to modify this file at all for > DragonFly. In fact, I seem to recall that I didn't modify it for > DragonFly, but rather for FreeBSD. If I had to guess, it would be that > I found mprotect() was needed regardless of value of kern.stackprot. I > must have traced some test failures back to this. > > Which I guess that's what you mean - just delete the block between "#if > defined __FreeBSD__" and the next #elif which should be equivalent. I > can tweak the patch set to do that. Yes. > And what about the dl_iterate_phdr changes? Do they look good to you? They looked fine to me but I'm not a build system maintainer. Ian