On 14-08-25 15:41:17, [email protected] wrote: > On 2014-08-25 15:17, Khem Raj wrote: > >On 14-08-25 12:06:16, [email protected] wrote: > > <snipped> > > >> > >>I guess the gap in my knowledge is how uClibc, by only applying to > >>assembler > >>files, meets "marking all libraries and executables" when the GNU_STACK > >>flag > >>is missing from the ELF images? Note it has been a very long time since > >>I > > > >it wont. Can you patch UCLIBC_BUILD_NOEXECSTACK code to pass the linker > >option as well ? > > Yes, I did, that was how I confirmed the UCLIBC_BUILD_NOEXECSTACK option > seems to be ambiguously named. > > I have two alternative patches: either > (a) a patch that adds a new option UCLIBC_BUILD_NOEXECSTACK_ALL, to retain > meaning and backward compatibility of the existing config option, > (b) a patch that updates UCLIBC_BUILD_NOEXECSTACK to apply at the linker > stage
(b) is what we need. > > I guess I was trying to find out if there was a reason things are the way > they are, prior to submitting one of my patches. > > --Andrew > > --- > > http://blog.oldcomputerjunk.net _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
