Original message
From: Rich Felker
Date: 02/02/2018 18:32 (GMT+00:00)
To: Szabolcs Nagy
Cc: li...@coryfields.com, "H.J. Lu" , n...@arm.com, GCC
Development
Subject: Re: -static-pie and -static -pie
On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 11:33:22AM +, Szabolcs
t; (and !static: to !static:%{!static-pie: etc.),
> except where it is used to mean "no-pie static",
> those should be changed to PIE_SPEC:;static:
> (and i think --no-dynamic-linker should always
> be passed to ld in LD_PIE_SPEC for static pie,
> not just on linux systems an
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 07:58:31AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 7:56 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Cory Fields wrote:
> >> After looking at this for quite a while, I'm afraid I'm unsure how to
> >> proceed.
> >>
> >> As of now, static and static-pie a
passed to ld in LD_PIE_SPEC for static pie,
not just on linux systems and selected targets.)
then there should be no difference between -static -pie
and -static-pie. (and the new -static-pie flag would
be redundant.)
this would e.g. break static linking with default pie
toolchain on systems where
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 7:56 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Cory Fields wrote:
>> After looking at this for quite a while, I'm afraid I'm unsure how to
>> proceed.
>>
>> As of now, static and static-pie are mutually exclusive. So given the
>> GNU_USER_TARGET_STARTFILE_SPEC
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Cory Fields wrote:
> After looking at this for quite a while, I'm afraid I'm unsure how to proceed.
>
> As of now, static and static-pie are mutually exclusive. So given the
> GNU_USER_TARGET_STARTFILE_SPEC you pasted
> earlier, "static" matches before "static-pie"
After looking at this for quite a while, I'm afraid I'm unsure how to proceed.
As of now, static and static-pie are mutually exclusive. So given the
GNU_USER_TARGET_STARTFILE_SPEC you pasted
earlier, "static" matches before "static-pie", causing the wrong start files.
It seems to me that the stat
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:18 AM, Cory Fields wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 2:14 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:07 AM, Cory Fields wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:35 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Cory Fields wrote:
> Hi list
>
>
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 2:14 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:07 AM, Cory Fields wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:35 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Cory Fields wrote:
Hi list
I'm playing with -static-pie and musl, which seems to be in g
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:07 AM, Cory Fields wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:35 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Cory Fields wrote:
>>> Hi list
>>>
>>> I'm playing with -static-pie and musl, which seems to be in good shape
>>> for 8.0.0. Nice work :)
>>>
>>> However, t
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:35 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Cory Fields wrote:
>> Hi list
>>
>> I'm playing with -static-pie and musl, which seems to be in good shape
>> for 8.0.0. Nice work :)
>>
>> However, the fact that "gcc -static -pie" and "gcc -static-pie"
>> produc
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Cory Fields wrote:
> Hi list
>
> I'm playing with -static-pie and musl, which seems to be in good shape
> for 8.0.0. Nice work :)
>
> However, the fact that "gcc -static -pie" and "gcc -static-pie"
> produce different results is very unexpected. I understand the c
Hi list
I'm playing with -static-pie and musl, which seems to be in good shape
for 8.0.0. Nice work :)
However, the fact that "gcc -static -pie" and "gcc -static-pie"
produce different results is very unexpected. I understand the case
for the new link-type, but merging the options when possible w
13 matches
Mail list logo
