Kostik,
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 09:41:46PM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 10:14:06AM +0200, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
> > Hi Alexander,
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 09:14:46PM +0200, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 11:46:51AM -0400, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I have no objection, but think we should cave in and investigate the
> > > > possibility of using linker script wrapping libc.so in FreeBSD-9.0:
> > > >
> > > > Below is Linux' counterpart:
> > > >
> > > > /* GNU ld script
> > > > Use the shared library, but some functions are only in
> > > > the static library, so try that secondarily. */
> > > > OUTPUT_FORMAT(elf32-i386)
> > > > GROUP ( /lib/libc.so.6 /usr/lib/libc_nonshared.a AS_NEEDED
> > > > ( /lib/ld-linux.so.2 ) )
> > >
> > > Ok. For now can you commit the proposed modification. I'll try to make
> > > a patch with your proposal.
> >
> > The attached patch does two things: It modifies bsd.lib.mk to support ld
> > scripts for shared libraries and adds such a script to replace the
> > /usr/lib/libc.so symlink to /lib/libc.so.X.
> >
> > Basically, SHLIB_LDSCRIPT is defined in lib/libc/Makefile and points to
> > the file containing the script itself:
> > GROUP ( @@SHLIB@@ /usr/lib/libssp_nonshared.a )
> >
> > During make install, @@SHLIB@@ will be replaced by the real path of the
> > shared library.
>
> You did not included $FreeBSD$ tag into libc.so script. I think it would be
> useful to have.
Sure. I will send an updated patch a little later.
> Could you, please, comment why the script is not installed during the
> world build stage ? My question is, would the buildworld use the script
> for linkage ?
libc.ld, the generated ldscript in ${.OBJDIR}, is built along with
libc.so.7 which is built only once (stage 4.2 of buildworld).
In order to get buildworld use the ld script, it would require to
generate it twice: once during stage 4.2 using
/usr/obj/usr/src/tmp/lib/libc.so.7 and another one afterward using
/lib/libc.so.7.
Besides I didn't see an advantage to do this because when compiling the
base system, CFLAGS and LDFLAGS are well controlled so -fstack-protector
will be provided when linking the program. On the other hand, the patch
I propose is required for the numerous ports for which we do not control
linking flags; lang/perl comes into my mind. If you want to compile it
with SSP, you have to patch its build infrastructure (see ports/138228).
Regards,
--
Jeremie Le Hen
Humans are born free and equal. But some are more equal than others.
Coluche
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
