search for: wouldnot

...The compiler always generates safe object files (unless there is inline code with non-local labels) and always sets the flag. Hand written assembly files did not have the flag by default, but savvy assembly programmers can set it. > We could set this flag for ELF too in the ELF header, but it wouldnot not confirm to the ELF ABI. > > To account safe sections, we should just create an additional section in the ELF (gcc creates a lot many sections to handle executable stack and for LTO). This would just be another section to dictate what sections are safe. Or just create a new empty section...

...ot;. The compiler always generates safe object files (unless there is inline code with non-local labels) and always sets the flag. Hand written assembly files did not have the flag by default, but savvy assembly programmers can set it. We could set this flag for ELF too in the ELF header, but it wouldnot not confirm to the ELF ABI. To account safe sections, we should just create an additional section in the ELF (gcc creates a lot many sections to handle executable stack and for LTO). This would just be another section to dictate what sections are safe. Isnt it better to have this flag set for...

...compiler always generates safe object files (unless there is inline code with non-local labels) and always sets the flag. Hand written assembly files did not have the flag by default, but savvy assembly programmers can set it. >> We could set this flag for ELF too in the ELF header, but it wouldnot not confirm to the ELF ABI. >> >> To account safe sections, we should just create an additional section in the ELF (gcc creates a lot many sections to handle executable stack and for LTO). This would just be another section to dictate what sections are safe. > Or just create a new em...

On Jul 25, 2013, at 2:10 PM, Rui Ueyama wrote: > Is there any reason -ffunction-sections and -fdata-sections wouldn't work? If it'll work, it may be be better to say "if you want to get a better linker output use these options", rather than defining new ELF section. >From my understanding, -ffunction-sections is a good semantic match. But it introduces a lot of bloat in

...ere is inline code with non-local labels) and always >>>> sets the flag. Hand written assembly files did not have the flag by >>>> default, but savvy assembly programmers can set it. >>>> >>> We could set this flag for ELF too in the ELF header, but it wouldnot >>> not confirm to the ELF ABI. >>> >>> To account safe sections, we should just create an additional section in >>> the ELF (gcc creates a lot many sections to handle executable stack and for >>> LTO). This would just be another section to dictate what...

...ere is inline code with non-local labels) and always >>>> sets the flag. Hand written assembly files did not have the flag by >>>> default, but savvy assembly programmers can set it. >>>> >>> We could set this flag for ELF too in the ELF header, but it wouldnot >>> not confirm to the ELF ABI. >>> >>> To account safe sections, we should just create an additional section in >>> the ELF (gcc creates a lot many sections to handle executable stack and for >>> LTO). This would just be another section to dictate what...