On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 7:44 PM Paul Eggert <eggert@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2022-11-11 07:11, Aaron Ballman wrote: > > Clang doesn't require such a linker (we work with various system > linkers). > > As long as the system linkers continue to work as they have > traditionally worked, we're fine. > > > the frontend perspective, we can't tell the difference between > > "trust me this is safe because it never gets executed" and "this is a > > CVE" > > If some system linker ever attempts to reject links with mismatched > signatures, Autoconf-generated code will need to have a way to shut that > off. I hope Clang maintainers can be cajoled into supporting that, if > the time comes. Perhaps there can be a #pragma, or a compile-time > option, to do that. > There has been discussion of the problems with compile-time options elsewhere in the thread, but the #pragma idea sounds promising, as older compilers can just ignore it. Jason
