Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 15:12:45 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: salvador <salvador AT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, Robert Hoehne <robert DOT hoehne AT gmx DOT net>
Subject: Re: .align directives in libc.a
In-Reply-To: <3781F878.E2AE32B8@inti.gov.ar>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990707151220.2851C-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Tue, 6 Jul 1999, salvador wrote:

> > The alignment pseudo-ops allow to define the value of the byte with
> > which to pad.  Thus, ".p2align 3,0xcc" should pad to 8-byte boundary
> > with Int 3 instructions.
> >
> > But why is this a good idea?
> 
> To trap jumps in this space.

Isn't some invalid opcode (that would cause SIGILL) better?  Int 3
might have a confusing effect inside a debugger, whereas SIGILL will
be unambiguous.