First, thanks to Dave and Daniel for taking the time to reply.
On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 11:06 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> crtbeginT.o is used for -static; crtbegin.o is used without -static.
> I don't recall why they have to be different.
So far as we can tell from looking at the linux versions, the only
difference is that crtbeginT is calling
register_frame_info_bases
deregister_frame_info_bases
I suspect that these are related to the exception frame walker, because
if --static (therefore crtbeginT) is provided then --eh-frame-header is
not applied by default. That is: I suspect that --static does not
support exception frame walking. This smells like a Linux legacy issue
that may not apply to us. Can anybody confirm or correct that guess?
I think I need to understand the eh-frame support better. Where should I
look for documentation on that?
> > 2. Is there a simple way to configure the compiler so that the default
> > compilation model (in the absence of command-line directives) is
> > --static? If not, which of the various specfile macros need to be
> > updated? I know how to write specfile lines, I just want to make sure
> > that I don't miss one somewhere.
>
> Like Dave I recommend DRIVER_SELF_SPECS. Or you can just not put
> shared libraries in your default linker search path; that's basically
> equivalent.
I can try this, and I'll look at the docs on that.
> But it sounds like you are modelling after the wrong target, a Linux
> one when you should be using an ELF one as base instead. You don't
> need three CRT files or a separate -static option if you don't have
> dynamic linking. And then you don't need to build libgcc with PIC
> code in it, and there won't be GOT references any more.
We are going to want to have the PIE and shared models later, so I don't
want to disable those. At the moment all I am really trying to do is to
get --static working correctly.
