MaskRay added a comment. In D128333#3613665 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D128333#3613665>, @awarzynski wrote:
> @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? True. If it is difficult to override the `-pie` default from flang side, I am fine with the code change. >> (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>. OK, so you did bring this up. I guess I'll have to accept... >> 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? ================ Comment at: flang/test/Driver/no-pie.f90:3 + +!------------- +! RUN COMMANDS ---------------- The `! RUN COMMANDS` and `EXPECTED OUTPUT` comments seem rather redundant. I'd remove them. ================ Comment at: flang/test/Driver/no-pie.f90:11 +!---------------- +! CHECK-NOT: fpie +! CHECK-NOT: fpic ---------------- This NOT pattern can easily get stale. You need a test that driver `-pie` forwards `-pie` to the linker and by default `-pie` does not pass the the linker. 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
