> Do I miss something? If I recall correctly, gcc used to have a variety of x-only violators.
But the last big one was jump table code generation towards applications, but also within it's own intermediate build. I have a feeling that disabling jump tables by default, eventually resulted in an pure x-only able build sequence, and this has been safe for a while. Future gcc updates must remember to disable jump tables. If you forget, an intermediate step builds such code, confusion occurs, and maybe in an overreaction USE_NOEXECONLY=Yes gets turned on again? :-)
