From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14198 invoked by alias); 21 Nov 2014 23:21:31 -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 14188 invoked by uid 89); 21 Nov 2014 23:21:30 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 23:21:29 +0000 Received: from nat-ies.mentorg.com ([192.94.31.2] helo=SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1XrxW1-00021w-Pp from joseph_myers@mentor.com ; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 15:21:25 -0800 Received: from digraph.polyomino.org.uk (137.202.0.76) by SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com (137.202.0.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.181.6; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 23:21:24 +0000 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1XrxVz-0002oT-TH; Fri, 21 Nov 2014 23:21:24 +0000 Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 00:26:00 -0000 From: Joseph Myers To: Ilya Enkovich CC: Andi Kleen , gcc-patches Subject: Re: [PATCH, MPX runtime 1/2] Integrate MPX runtime library In-Reply-To: <20141119141555.GD47331@msticlxl57.ims.intel.com> Message-ID: References: <20141111153449.GB52080@msticlxl57.ims.intel.com> <87r3x9a7yt.fsf@tassilo.jf.intel.com> <20141112160432.GA5697@msticlxl57.ims.intel.com> <20141119141555.GD47331@msticlxl57.ims.intel.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-SW-Source: 2014-11/txt/msg02876.txt.bz2 On Wed, 19 Nov 2014, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > > If it's intended only as the latter - and this is documented - then you > > don't have the libgcc-like requirements, and there's no point in having > > multiple libraries. If it's intended for both, that points the way to > > separate libraries (where the debugging-tool library would be used in that > > use case, but the crash-reporter-interception case would expect programs > > to have been linked with only the minimal library). > > Would it be enough to mention implicit link and resulting pthread > dependency in -fcheck-pointer-bounds description in invoke.texi? Well, that and say explicitly that it's intended as a debugging tool rather than for general hardening. -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com