On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:35 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Cory Fields <li...@coryfields.com> wrote: >> Hi list >> >> I'm playing with -static-pie and musl, which seems to be in good shape >> for 8.0.0. Nice work :) >> >> However, the fact that "gcc -static -pie" and "gcc -static-pie" >> produce different results is very unexpected. I understand the case >> for the new link-type, but merging the options when possible would be >> a huge benefit to existing buildsystems that already cope with both >> individually. >> >> My use-case: >> I'd like to build with --enable-default-pie, and by adding "-static" > > Why not adding "-static-pie" instead of "-static"? > >> to my builds, produce static-pie binaries. But at the moment, that >> attempts to add an interp section. >> >> So my question is, if no conflicting options are found, why not hoist >> "-static -pie" to "-static-pie" ? >> >> Regards, >> Cory > > > > -- > H.J.
My build system, and plenty of others I'm sure, already handle -static and -pie. Having that understood to mean "static-pie" would mean that the combination would now just work. Asking a different way, if I request -static and -pie, without -nopie, quietly creating non-pie binary seems like a bug. Is there a reason _not_ to interpret it as -static-pie in that case?