https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31795
--- Comment #47 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> --- (In reply to mintsuki from comment #46) g. > > > > Opt-in to ET_EXEC will be wrong. > > Why will it be wrong? What if someone (me) wants to make a PIE that loads at It is wrong because -Ttext-segment=0x600000000000 no longer works. > a minimum at the specified address, but can be relocated above it? Currently > ld makes this impossible by simply checking the ELF type, forcing my ELF > loader to additionally check for the presence of the DF_1_PIE flag to decide > whether an ELF file is relocatable or not... > > ...but Linux doesn't do that, apparently, but instead forces the load > address to be the one specified, due to the ELF type being ET_EXEC. > > Earlier you said I should check DF_1_PIE to determine relocatability... so No, that was not what I said. DF_1_PIE can be used to determine if a binary is PIE. > which one is it? If I check for DF_1_PIE then I am not following the same > behaviour as the Linux ELF loader, which means that I either break from > Linux's behaviour, or I follow it, but that means that ld will never allow > me to make an ET_DYN PIE with a non-0 load address. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
