awarzynski added a comment. @MaskRay, thank for taking a look!
In D128333#3605745 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D128333#3605745>, @MaskRay wrote: > gfortran defaults to PIE as well. While we strive to be compatible with `gfortan`, there's a lot relatively "basic" things still missing in LLVM Flang. So this is not the highest priority ATM. >> We can revisit this once support for -fpie and -fpic is available in LLVM >> Flang. I'm not aware of anyone actively working in this area. > > Disagree. The PIE default should be fine. When PIE support is added, the > default mode naturally becomes PIE. > Note: -fpie object files can be linked with either -no-pie or -pie. -fno-pic > object files can only be linked with -no-pie. > -fpie is more portable than -fno-pic. But an object file with R_X86_64_32 relocations cannot be linked with a `-pie` object, right? How can I make sure that there are no such relocations then? > (Why does flang use clang/lib/Driver? For clang developers, it seems that > `check-clang check-clang-tools` is not sufficient. `check-flang` needs to be > used as well.) Otherwise, we'd have to re-implement clang/lib/Driver for LLVM Flang. This design was proposed and discussed here <https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2019-June/062669.html>. > For clang developers, it seems that `check-clang check-clang-tools` is not > sufficient. `check-flang` needs to be used as well.) Isn't this a bit similar to e.g. LLVM developers? Or MLIR developers? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D128333/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D128333 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
