On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 07:12:19PM -0700, Phillip Hellewell wrote: >>... >> - Now tries to link a few of the libraries statically (e.g., >> libicuuc.a). ld blows up with a bunch of relocation R_X86_64_32S, blah >> blah blah, recompile with -fPIC errors. > > The error message is misleading, PIE is sufficient.
Ah yes, it would be nice if gcc could alter this error message slightly. >> All they know is that for some reason they can't link most libraries >> statically without getting a bunch of weird errors. It could take hours of >> research to figure out a workaround like -no-pie. > > Submitting a bug against release-notes for having everything PIE > releated properly documented would make sense. Agreed. I'll try to submit that if I remember and get time; unless you beat me to it, which I wouldn't mind at all :) >> Given that GCC 6 on Debian 9 now does PIE executables by default, I think >> it becomes very necessary to consider that Debian out to build all static >> libraries with -fPIE (or -fPIC). > > All static libraries in Debian will be recompiled with -fPIE before the > release of stretch, for the ones where no uploads are happening for > other reasons binNMUs will be done. Awesome! That works for me :) >> Otherwise you're going to get thousands >> and thousands of users having no clue why they can't link anything >> statically. Plus if you did that you wouldn't have to build everything >> twice. Win-Win !!! So why not? > > Building all static libraries with -fPIC (not just -fPIE) would be an > insane amount of work, since you don't want to also build the binaries > with -fPIC. I'm happy with -fPIE for the static libraries. Thanks! Phillip
