https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31795
--- Comment #35 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> --- (In reply to mintsuki from comment #34) > > The static PIE generated by ldd with non-zero load address won't work with > > glibc before and after my glibc fix. I will open an lld issue after glibc > > is fixed. > > I *strongly* disagree with this. > > Why are glibc implementation details dictating how ld.bfd operates? Where This is how ELF works on Linux. > does it say non-0 load addresses for static-PIE/PIE are not allowed in the > ELF specification? If it is allowed, why is ld.bfd not allowing me to do it Static PIE isn't the part of ELF spec. There was a discussion: https://groups.google.com/g/generic-abi/c/mBKlSNldFW4/m/GRddmWGGBQAJ > despite Limine accepting this form of ELF files just fine? > > At least please consider adding a flag or linker script directive to > manually set the ELF type... That will generate the wrong static PIE with non-zero load address. You should check DF_1_PIE for PIE, not ET_DYN. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
