https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88088
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88088
Martin Uecker changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||muecker at gwdg dot de
--- Comment #26
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88088
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #25
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88088
--- Comment #24 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #23)
> (In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #22)
> > (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #21)
> > > (In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #20)
> > > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88088
--- Comment #23 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #22)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #21)
> > (In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #20)
> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-11/msg02055.html
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88088
--- Comment #22 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #21)
> (In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #20)
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-11/msg02055.html
>
> Did this make it in? If not, have you pinged it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88088
--- Comment #21 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #20)
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-11/msg02055.html
Did this make it in? If not, have you pinged it lately?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88088
--- Comment #20 from Mark Wielaard ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-11/msg02055.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88088
--- Comment #19 from Mark Wielaard ---
I think we are just talking past each other because we don't fully agree when
the warning should trigger and whether it is (trivial and/or) desirable to
avoid that specific corner case.
We do agree that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88088
--- Comment #18 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Your "trivial rewrite" does not work at all (you didn't modify "h").
It isn't trivial to avoid this warning at all, which was half of my point.
The other half is that we should not warn that the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88088
--- Comment #17 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #16)
> Something as trivial as this
>
> ===
> void h(int (*)(void));
> void f(int x)
> {
> int g(void) { return x; }
> h(g);
> }
> ===
>
> will
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88088
--- Comment #16 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Something as trivial as this
===
void h(int (*)(void));
void f(int x)
{
int g(void) { return x; }
h(g);
}
===
will already do. *Anything* that needs trampolines will do.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88088
--- Comment #15 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #14)
> It is very hard to avoid the warning if you use this feature (you need to
> stop using the feature altogether!), which would disqualify it for -Wall
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88088
--- Comment #14 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It is *not* a security issue for many environments, and the warning warns
whenever you use a useful feature.
It is very hard to avoid the warning if you use this feature (you need to
stop using the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88088
--- Comment #13 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #12)
> Requiring everything on the stack to always be executable, while normally it
> is
> not, is an issue, sure.
>
> Requiring the stack to be executable when
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88088
--- Comment #12 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Requiring everything on the stack to always be executable, while normally it is
not, is an issue, sure.
Requiring the stack to be executable when *everything* is executable *always*,
is not an issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88088
--- Comment #11 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #10)
> As I said, very many targets have no concept of "executable" at all.
> Most of the *-elf targets, most (all?) of the *-aout targets.
>
> Not all of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88088
--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool ---
As I said, very many targets have no concept of "executable" at all.
Most of the *-elf targets, most (all?) of the *-aout targets.
Not all of the world is Linux.
-Wall is only for *easy to avoid*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88088
--- Comment #9 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #5)
> The documentation currently says
>
> '-Wtrampolines'
> Warn about trampolines generated for pointers to nested functions.
> A trampoline is a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88088
--- Comment #8 from Florian Weimer ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #7)
> The number of targets where such a warning is meaningless is _big_, that is
> the point (most of the (older) embedded targets).
There are a lot of targets
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88088
--- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The number of targets where such a warning is meaningless is _big_, that is
the point (most of the (older) embedded targets).
If the warning warns where there is no problem, it does not belong in -Wall
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88088
--- Comment #6 from Florian Weimer ---
I'm not a fan of target-specific warnings. In this case, the number of targets
where this the warning would not be appropriate would be vanishingly small,
though, so I do not think this is a problem in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88088
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
The documentation currently says
'-Wtrampolines'
Warn about trampolines generated for pointers to nested functions.
A trampoline is a small piece of data or code that is created at
run
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88088
--- Comment #4 from Mark Wielaard ---
I think the point of the warning is to note that executable code is generated
on the stack (which seems to always be something to warn about IMHO).
But I am fine with only enabling -Wtrampolines with -Wall
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88088
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
It is good that it doesn't warn if trampolines are not data. This is not
documented, fwiw.
It also warns if the stack is executable *anyway*, like it is for many
targets. This is not useful; as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88088
--- Comment #2 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #1)
> This also would warn for targets where it is not an issue at all (where
> trampolines are just data, or where the stack is executable anyway, or where
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88088
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
---
27 matches
Mail list logo
