Re: How can Autoconf help with the transition to stricter compilation defaults?

[Paul Eggert]

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.