https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27169
--- Comment #4 from Fangrui Song <i at maskray dot me> --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3) > (In reply to Fangrui Song from comment #2) > > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #1) > > > Since i386 doesn't have IP-relative addressing, non-PIC PLT is different > > > from PIC PLT. Using R_386_PLT32 for "call/jmp foo" isn't appreciate. > > > > I know that this is a convention using R_386_PC32 for non-PIC PLT and > > R_386_PLT32. It is artificial and assembler/linker/ld.so do not need this > > convention for interop. > > R_386_PLT32 should be used with the EBX based PLT and "call foo" doesn't > require setting up EBX for PLT. > > > On most other architectures branch relocation types are distinguishable from > > address taken relocation types (direct access). > > This can't be fixed with R_386_PLT32. Does GNU ld use R_386_PC32/R_386_PLT32 to decide whether a non-PIC PLT or a PIC PLT should be used? It can use a non-PIC PLT in -no-pie mode and a PIC PLT in -pie/-shared mode. Then branch R_386_PC32 can be freely converted to PLT32. # a.s call foo # b.s call foo@plt gcc -fno-pic a.s -shared -o a.so -fuse-ld=bfd gcc -fno-pic b.s -shared -o b.so -fuse-ld=bfd do not have instruction difference. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
