[PATCH] D17918: [ELF] - Issue an error if trying to generate relocatable from objects having mixed splitstacks.

[Rui Ueyama via llvm-commits]

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 5:30 AM, George Rimar <grimar at accesssoftek.com>
wrote:

> >It should still get the same type of handling as GNU-split-stack, though.
> I see no reason to handle one (even if "handle" is discarding if the output
> is not relocatable) but not the other.
> Thats because -r does not need to handle it. We should handle the other
> one for completeness, but that is not relative to this patch, so should be
> done separatelly.
>
> >But I think the latter messages have a better idea: Simply rejecting
> split-stack objects (unless you plan on adding the rest of the support,
> including changing function prologues) seems like the >most appropriate
> thing to do right now.
> So if we are not going to support splitstacks, I would also vote for this.
> (I can just update this patch, will cut excessive logic and update the
> tests, probably will also add few testcases).
>

I'd agree with this. For now, it seems that the best choice is to just
raise an error for split-stack object files because we are not doing
anything meaningful for such object files.

But if it is reasonable to have splitstacks, then I can implement this
> feature I think.
>

I'd like to wait for someone coming to us and say that "hey you guys should
support this because <a convincing reason>". It is not currently happening.

Rui, Rafael, what do you think about this ?
>
> George.
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20160307/b8170eb8/attachment.html>