This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Adding static-PIE support to binutils
- From: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Rich Felker <dalias at libc dot org>
- Cc: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>, Binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>, GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 21:00:01 +0000
- Subject: Re: Adding static-PIE support to binutils
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20150624041847 dot GA26414 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx> <CAMe9rOoQCDXZK_LTCt81+WvtBLsnNbGDR10_aKe4s8D+-3Ehng at mail dot gmail dot com> <20150818024256 dot GF32742 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx> <20150818034443 dot GH32742 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx> <CAMe9rOqZmc9K_bEKqWZ6tkTE66OegyE0JMRef1xEf32hWCPPSg at mail dot gmail dot com> <20150818160855 dot GK32742 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx> <CAMe9rOorDaT1YEf=FrGMnyZgOmAGwrBpTEMZtYROCXG=ioSLvQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <20150819005842 dot GN32742 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1508191500540 dot 11312 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20150820205118 dot GX32742 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx>
On Thu, 20 Aug 2015, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 03:01:20PM +0000, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > If a new option is added, of course it needs documenting in the ld manual
> > (ld.texinfo).
> I can do that and resubmit the patch, but is there consensus that
> adding a new option is appropriate? Like I said before I mildly lean
> that way because it's more flexible.
I have no views on whether a new option is appropriate (I agree with the
high-level principle of supporting static PIEs).
Joseph S. Myers