From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19428 invoked by alias); 10 Jun 2011 10:08:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 19419 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Jun 2011 10:08:19 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from snape.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE (HELO smtp-relay.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE) (129.70.160.84) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 10 Jun 2011 10:08:05 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-relay.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EF431F5; Fri, 10 Jun 2011 12:08:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp-relay.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (malfoy.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id haTXbfBN9lN9; Fri, 10 Jun 2011 12:08:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from manam.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE (manam.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE [129.70.161.120]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-relay.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD61C1F4; Fri, 10 Jun 2011 12:08:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from ro@localhost) by manam.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4/Submit) id p5AA7xaX013355; Fri, 10 Jun 2011 12:07:59 +0200 (MEST) From: Rainer Orth To: "Joseph S. Myers" Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Jakub Jelinek Subject: Re: [testsuite] Run TLS torture tests with -fpic etc. References: <20110603194403.GG17079@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com> <20110607165513.GD17079@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com> Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 10:14:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20110607165513.GD17079@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com> (Jakub Jelinek's message of "Tue, 7 Jun 2011 18:55:13 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (usg-unix-v) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2011-06/txt/msg00817.txt.bz2 Jakub Jelinek writes: > On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 06:48:08PM +0200, Rainer Orth wrote: >> any word on this patch? I think I only need approval for the gcc.c > > I'm not a maintainer of gcc.c, and I think it is a bad idea. > PIE is just a (slightly) more secure form of an executable, therefore > if a target doesn't support position independent executables, linking > it as normal executable is IMHO just fine. Joseph, as driver maintainer, what's your take on this? http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-06/msg00373.html If the gcc.c change is unacceptable, I'll change the pie effective-target keyword to just check for darwin9+ and linux instead. Thanks. Rainer -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University