Re: [PING] Contributing new gcc targets: i386-*-dragonfly and x86-64-*-dragonfly

[John Marino <gnugcc@marino.st>]

On 4/29/2014 19:23, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:37 AM, John Marino <gnugcc@marino.st> wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone have any issues with this set of patches to add support for
>> the DragonFly targets?  It's a blocker for other patches of mine that
>> have a more general benefit, but this (relatively simple) one has to go
>> in first.
> 
> It's inconvenient, but patches are much more likely to be reviewed
> when they cover a separate part of the tree, as different people
> maintain different parts.  I expect your libitm and libcilkrts could
> be approved trivially if you send them separately.

Hi Ian,
I was trying to identify specific people (e.g. an libitm person) and
have them approve specific files since they are trivial as you saw.  I
decided to keep the patch set as an atomic unit because it needs to be
committed as a unit, and also because I assumed it provided the
necessary context.


> The change to include/libiberty.h is fine.

thanks!

> I don't understand the benefit of libgcc/enable-execute-stack-bsd.c.
> The code seems the same as the existing
> libgcc/enable-execute-stack-mprotect.c.  All you are changing is
> omitting need_enable_exec_stack.  If you just drop the FreeBSD
> constructor, you will get the behaviour you want.

With the caveat that this patch is over 2 years old, I just took a look
at both files.  I would have not needed to modify this file at all for
DragonFly.  In fact, I seem to recall that I didn't modify it for
DragonFly, but rather for FreeBSD.  If I had to guess, it would be that
I found mprotect() was needed regardless of value of kern.stackprot.  I
must have traced some test failures back to this.

Which I guess that's what you mean - just delete the block between "#if
defined __FreeBSD__" and the next #elif which should be equivalent.  I
can tweak the patch set to do that.


And what about the dl_iterate_phdr changes?  Do they look good to you?

Thanks,
John