This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
PING: [PATCH] Use rcrt1.o%s/grcrt1.o%s to relocate static PIE
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: Rich Felker <dalias at libc dot org>
- Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 11:32:19 -0800
- Subject: PING: [PATCH] Use rcrt1.o%s/grcrt1.o%s to relocate static PIE
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 10:48 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 9:39 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 06:16:57AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>> crt1.o is used to create dynamic and non-PIE static executables. Static
>>>> PIE needs to link with Pcrt1.o, instead of crt1.o, to relocate static PIE
>>>> at run-time. When -pg is used with -static-pie, gPcrt1.o should be used.
>>>>
>>>> Tested on x86-64. OK for master?
>>>
>>> Is there a reason you didn't follow the existing naming practice here?
>>> Openbsd and musl libc have both had static pie for a long time now and
>>> have used rcrt1.o as the name.
>>
>> I wasn't aware of rcrt1.o and there is no reference to rcrt1.o in GCC at all.
>> Does the FSF GCC support static PIE for musl libc? If not, is there a GCC
>> bug for it?
>>
>> BTW, I don't mind replacing Pcrt1.o/gPcrt1.o with rcrt1.o/grcrt1.o.
>>
>
> Here is the updated patch to use rcrt1.o/grcrt1.o.
>
> OK for trunk?
>
> Thanks.
>
PING.
--
H.J.