On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 12:16:59PM -0700, Leonid Yegoshin wrote: > On 10/07/2014 12:09 PM, Rich Felker wrote: > >I agree completely here. We should not break things (or, as it > >seems, leave them broken) for common usage cases that affect > >everyone just to coddle proprietary vendor-specific instructions. > >The latter just should not be used in delay slots unless the chip > >vendor also promises to provide fpu branch in hardware. Rich > And what do you propose - remove a current in-stack emulation and > you still think it doesn't break a status-quo? The in-stack trampoline support could be left but used only for emulating instructions the kernel doesn't know. This would make all normal binaries immediately usable with non-executable stack, and would avoid the only potential source of regressions. Ultimately I think the "xol" stuff should be removed, but that could be a long term goal. Rich
