This is the mail archive of the binutils@sourceware.org mailing list for the binutils project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH, BFD, LD, AArch64, 0/4] Add support for AArch64 BTI and PAC in the linker


On 08/03/2019 10:07, Nick Clifton wrote:
> Hi Sudi,
> 
>>> OK, so just to be clear, with --bti or --bti-nowarn the output will be
>>> given the BTI tag *even if* some of the input files do not have the BTI note ?
> 
>> Yes
> 
>> can go back and check the objects that need recompiling or use 
>> --bti-nowarn when they are sure that even if there is any object with 
>> missing BTI note section it is still safe to turn on BTI (or they still 
>> want to turn on BTI). We think that these options would be most helpful 
>> in early deployment.
> 
> OK, well I get the --bti option then, but I still think that --bti-nowarn
> is a mistake.  Given that --bti will only generate warnings if there are
> object files without the BTI note, and warnings can be ignored, I do not
> see the need for --bti-nowarn.  Plus using --bti-nowarn could potentially
> cause problems if the developer forgets (or does not know) that it is
> enabled, and they end up thinking that they are creating BTI enabled
> binaries when in fact they are not.

Given this conversation, maybe renaming --bti to --force-bti would 
express the intention clearer ?


regards
Ramana
> 
> Cheers
>    Nick
> 
> 


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]