On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Magnus Granberg <zo...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> fredag 09 januari 2015 13.00.14 skrev Daniel Micay:
>> On 09/01/15 12:49 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>> > On Fri, 9 Jan 2015, Daniel Micay wrote:
>> >>> --with-specs="%{pie|fpic|fPIC|fpie|fPIE|fno-pic|fno-PIC|fno-pie|fno-PIE|
>> >>> shared|static|nostdlib|nodefaultlibs|nostartfiles:;:-fPIE -pie}"
>> >>>
>> >>> at configure time (using CONFIGURE_SPECS).
> DRIVER_SELF_SPECS is checkt before CONFIGURE_SPECS. On mips it will have added
> -mno-shared before it check CONFIGURE_SPECS. I want to support more targets
> later on. Can move the spec to elfos.h.
>> >>>
>> >>> I have no idea if the above is really the proper spec to use - why
>> >>> do you include static, nostdlib, nodefaultlibs and nostartfiles
>> >>> for example? Similar, if I say
>> >>
>> >> PIE isn't supported for static executables by binutils, etc. so it
>> >> does need to exclude that. The checks for nostdlib, nodefaultlibs
>> >
>> > Well - that would indicate excluding -pie if one of the link-time options
>> > conflicting with it is used, -fPIE if one of the compile-time options
>> > conflicting with it is used. That way, "gcc -static file.c" would still
>> > have the same effect as "gcc -c file.c; gcc -static file.o" (building a
>> > PIE object, linking it into a non-PIE static executable), which makes
>> > logical sense to me (although there may be no great benefit either way).
>>
>> Sure, I agree. It should have separate lists of exceptions for both of
>> these.
> I can separete it to compile and linke sections and remove the nostdlib,
> nodefaultlibs and nostartfiles. But how do we not pass -pie to the linker when
> we don't pass static or shared and don't link it with -pie? For only the gold
> linker support -no-pie.
>
> /Magnus G.
>
>
Please try hjl/pie branch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=summary
and let know if it works for you.
--
H.J.
