From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <java-return-26535-listarch-java=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 25938 invoked by alias); 4 Dec 2009 15:48:21 -0000
Received: (qmail 25919 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Dec 2009 15:48:19 -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; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 15:48:11 +0000
Received: from int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.21]) 	by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id nB4Fm76j001817 	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); 	Fri, 4 Dec 2009 10:48:07 -0500
Received: from zebedee.pink (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) 	by int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id nB4Fm40B022574; 	Fri, 4 Dec 2009 10:48:05 -0500
Message-ID: <4B192F33.8000607@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 15:48:00 -0000
From: Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090825)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jack Howarth <howarth@bromo.med.uc.edu>
CC: "Boehm, Hans" <hans.boehm@hp.com>, borlum <thomas@borlum.dk>,         "java@gcc.gnu.org" <java@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] Fix oddity in personality routine
References: <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> <4B182CB7.9050605@redhat.com> <20091204041238.GA17057@bromo.med.uc.edu> <4B18D9FD.6080907@redhat.com> <20091204145145.GA20999@bromo.med.uc.edu> <4B1923DF.7050402@redhat.com> <20091204152347.GA21807@bromo.med.uc.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20091204152347.GA21807@bromo.med.uc.edu>
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: <java.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Id: <java.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:java-subscribe@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java/>
List-Post: <mailto:java@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:java-help@gcc.gnu.org>, <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: java-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-12/txt/msg00026.txt.bz2

Jack Howarth wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 02:59:43PM +0000, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>>      I suspect we may have a layered problem here and need
>>> to work through each section. This weekend, I do some additional
>>> builds to verify that the crash debugs to the same locations
>>> in both darwin9 and darwin10 with and without the proposed
>>> patch to pass -Wl,-allow_stack_execute on GCJLINK.
>> Right.
>>
> 
> Andrew,
>    Just to double check, you do agree that everything linked with 
> GCJLINK should be passed -Wl,-allow_stack_execute on darwin9/darwin10?

I think so.

> I am a bit confused by the criteria used to determine which java binaries
> need the ld flag for -allow_stack_execute. If the a shared library contains
> code that needs to execute on the stack

No gcj library needs to execute on the stack, only the heap.  I think the flag
is misnamed.

> (libgcj) shouldn't any executable
> that links in that shared lib use the -allow_stack_execute ld flag?

Yes, which is why I suggested you use SYSTEMSPEC.  (Twice now, I think.  :-)

SYSTEMSPEC should pass that flag to everything liked with gcj.

Andrew.