"H.J. Lu" <hjl.to...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Joseph Myers <jos...@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 May 2015, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>>> > I think the whole thing should be posted as one patch, with both the
>>> > target-independent changes and the target-specific changes for all
>>> > targets.
>>> >
>>>
>>> That is what makes me concerned. I have some simple target-specified
>>> patches which weren't reviewed for years. What will happen if no one
>>
>> For any unreviewed patch, keep pinging weekly.
>>
>>> reviews some simple target-specified changes due to
>>>
>>> 1. Reviewers don't have access to those targets.
>>> 2. Target maintainers aren't review them.
>>> 3. There are no clear maintainers for those targets.
>>
>> I've already said in
>> <https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-05/msg00593.html> that, given
>> target maintainers CC:ed, I might be inclined to approve the patch on the
>> basis of allowing them a week to test their target changes.
>>
>
> Here is the complete patch. Tested on Linux/x86-64. It is also
> available on hjl/pie/master branch in git mirror.
I just noticed that with --enable-default-pie, while crtbeginS.o is
linked into the executable, crtend.o is used, while with an explicit
-pie, crtendS.o is taken. Shouldn't GNU_USER_TARGET_ENDFILE_SPEC have
the same treatment as GNU_USER_TARGET_STARTFILE_SPEC already did?
* config/gnu-user.h (GNU_USER_TARGET_STARTFILE_SPEC): Use
PIE_SPEC and NO_PIE_SPEC if HAVE_LD_PIE is defined.
Rainer
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University
