From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Miles Bader Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: `exec shield' test in configure too strict? Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 14:53:48 +0900 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: Reply-To: Miles Bader NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1096869266 29782 80.91.229.6 (4 Oct 2004 05:54:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 05:54:26 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 04 07:54:15 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CELna-000721-00 for ; Mon, 04 Oct 2004 07:54:15 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CELuA-0003Ak-Dm for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 04 Oct 2004 02:01:02 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CELu3-0003AV-0C for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Oct 2004 02:00:55 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CELu2-0003AJ-Ip for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Oct 2004 02:00:54 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CELu2-0003AG-Fs for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 Oct 2004 02:00:54 -0400 Original-Received: from [202.32.8.202] (helo=tyo202.gate.nec.co.jp) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CELnN-0004bi-RL; Mon, 04 Oct 2004 01:54:02 -0400 Original-Received: from mailgate4.nec.co.jp (mailgate53.nec.co.jp [10.7.69.184]) by tyo202.gate.nec.co.jp (8.11.7/3.7W01080315) with ESMTP id i945rwn17547; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:53:59 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: (from root@localhost) by mailgate4.nec.co.jp (8.11.7/3.7W-MAILGATE-NEC) id i945rwD07030; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:53:58 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: from edtmg04.lsi.nec.co.jp ([10.26.17.201]) by mailsv4.nec.co.jp (8.11.7/3.7W-MAILSV4-NEC) with ESMTP id i945ruN28957; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:53:56 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: from mcsss2.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by edtmg04.lsi.nec.co.jp (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i945rs6O024500; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:53:55 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: from mctpc71 (mctpc71.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp [10.30.118.121]) by mcsss2.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp (8.12.10/8.12.8/EDcg v2.01-mc/1046780839) with ESMTP id i945rmwt002178; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:53:48 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by mctpc71 (Postfix, from userid 31295) id 86FA04D0; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:53:48 +0900 (JST) Original-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org System-Type: i686-pc-linux-gnu Blat: Foop Original-Lines: 41 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:27869 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:27869 Recently Emacs' configure script has been changed to check for the presence of linux `exec shield' functionality, by looking for the file /proc/sys/kernel/exec-shield, and seeing if it as a non-zero value. If it is present and enabled, and there's no `setarch' program available, configure will give an error message and abort. The reason for this, as I understand it, is that emacs cannot dump on such a system unless it can use the `setarch' program. However this test seems too strict: On fencepost.gnu.org, exec-shield is enabled: $ cat /proc/sys/kernel/exec-shield 1 and there is no setarch program: $ type setarch bash: type: setarch: not found and so emacs refuses to configure -- but if disable this test by doing: $ make ac_cv_file__proc_sys_kernel_exec_shield=no Then Emacs configures and dumps just fine, despite not using `setarch'. Perhaps a warning (maybe in big letters) rather than a fatal error would be appropriate. Oh, BTW: $ cat /proc/version Linux version 2.6.7-1.494.2.2smp (bhcompile@tweety.build.redhat.com) (gcc version 3.3.3 20040412 (Red Hat Linux 3.3.3-7)) #1 SMP Tue Aug 3 09:59:49 EDT 2004 A bit odd that fencepost is running a Redhat kernel when it's a Debian system but whatever... :-) Thanks, -Miles -- If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten. [George Carlin]