From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7129 invoked by alias); 3 Dec 2009 21:25:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 7117 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Dec 2009 21:25:22 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 21:25:19 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id nB3LPEF8015306 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 3 Dec 2009 16:25:15 -0500 Received: from zebedee.pink (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id nB3LPClp019506; Thu, 3 Dec 2009 16:25:13 -0500 Message-ID: <4B182CB7.9050605@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 21:25:00 -0000 From: Andrew Haley User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090825) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Boehm, Hans" CC: Jack Howarth , borlum , "java@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: [patch] Fix oddity in personality routine References: <20091130160125.GA25831@bromo.med.uc.edu> <4B13EDB1.9090102@redhat.com> <20091201050157.GA1933@bromo.med.uc.edu> <4B14E200.8030007@redhat.com> <20091201170403.GA8810@bromo.med.uc.edu> <4B15514D.2010708@redhat.com> <20091201232939.GA20242@bromo.med.uc.edu> <4B1634A9.3000106@redhat.com> <20091203010828.GA684@bromo.med.uc.edu> <4B17921A.8090403@redhat.com> <20091203140334.GA8556@bromo.med.uc.edu> <238A96A773B3934685A7269CC8A8D0425780547896@GVW0436EXB.americas.hpqcorp.net> In-Reply-To: <238A96A773B3934685A7269CC8A8D0425780547896@GVW0436EXB.americas.hpqcorp.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact java-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: java-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-12/txt/msg00016.txt.bz2 Boehm, Hans wrote: >> From: Jack Howarth >> Do you think that -Wl,-allow_stack_execute needs to be >> passed even more widely than on just ecjx_LDFLAGS? Any >> suggestions as to where I should be passing it? Perhaps on >> something like LIBJAVA_LDFLAGS_NOUNDEF at the toplevel of >> libjava? Or should we even be building libffi and boehm-gc >> with that as well? >> > I haven't been following this completely, but: > > The GC also has a compile-time flag NO_EXECUTE_PERMISSION, which affects heap executability. I think that's probably not the cause, since libffi allocates memory itself. Andrew.