From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4663 invoked by alias); 21 Sep 2004 22:11:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-hacker-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-hacker-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 2392 invoked from network); 21 Sep 2004 22:10:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO sccrmhc13.comcast.net) (204.127.202.64) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 21 Sep 2004 22:10:21 -0000 Received: from lucon.org ([24.6.212.230]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with ESMTP id <200409212210200160065icle>; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 22:10:20 +0000 Received: by lucon.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C174763F4D; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 15:10:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 22:11:00 -0000 From: "H. J. Lu" To: Jakub Jelinek Cc: Ulrich Drepper , gas2 Glibc hackers Subject: Re: [PATCH] Only use -z relro if it actually does something Message-ID: <20040921221017.GA26035@lucon.org> References: <20040920132453.GM30497@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> <20040920155433.GA30187@lucon.org> <20040920155701.GN30497@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> <20040920161255.GA30518@lucon.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040920161255.GA30518@lucon.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00080.txt.bz2 On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 09:12:55AM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote: > On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 05:57:01PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 08:54:33AM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 03:24:53PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > > Hi! > > > > > > > > On ia64 ATM -z relro does nothing (but increase the size of program > > > > headers). > > > > H.J. disabled it because it interferred with linker relaxation > > > > (not sure if that still applies or what the testcase was). > > > > > > > > > > Can you point it to my change? I may recall something. > > > > 2003-05-15 H.J. Lu > > > > * emulparams/elf64_ia64.sh: Don't set COMMONPAGESIZE for now. > > > > Thanks. I opened a binutils bug > > http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=393 > > to track it. I will check it out. > I have verified that gcc 3.3 still needs my patch. I closed the bug with results for gcc 3.2 Red Hat, gcc 3.3, gcc 3.4 and gcc 4.0. H.J.