On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 12:07, Waldemar Brodkorb <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Christophe, > Christophe Lyon wrote, > > > Hi, > > > > My recent attempt at submitting the GCC patch series to add FDPIC > > support for arm triggered a discussion about -static-pie support [1], > > which continued on IRC. > > > > The patch currently supports -static but the resulting binary still > > needs the dynamic linker to prepare the parameters for __self_reloc, > > and there are arguments that a static binary should not have a > > PT_INTERP field. > > > > At present, musl supports -static-pie for sh+FDPIC only. > > > > I think other uclibc-ng targets with FDPIC (frv, bfin) do not support > > -static, but I'm not sure how to build such toolchains, nor if they > > are still supported. > > > > It seems I have several options: > > (a) add support for static-pie to uclibc-ng. This means creating a new > > rcrt1.o or similar, which would embed parts of the dynamic linker into > > static-pie executables. I'm not sure how big a task this is? > > > > (b) add support for FDPIC on arm to musl, which I'm not familiar with > > > > (c) declare -static not supported on arm-FDPIC > > > > (d) gather consensus that -static with pt_interp is ok (my preference, > > since that's what the current patches do :-) > > > > So, my questions are: > > - does uclibc-ng support -static on some FDPIC targets? which ones? > > - how much work would option (a) mean? > > - are uclibc-ng people opposed to option (d)? > > I am fine with c). As for static binaries you could use binfmt. > I think blackfin has the same limitation for FDPIC. >
Thanks, that's what the updated GCC patch does: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-05/msg01591.html I'm still waiting for feedback on the whole series of GCC patches. Christophe > best regards > Waldemar _______________________________________________ devel mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.uclibc-ng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
