On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 07:58:31AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 7:56 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Cory Fields <li...@coryfields.com> wrote: > >> After looking at this for quite a while, I'm afraid I'm unsure how to > >> proceed. > >> > >> As of now, static and static-pie are mutually exclusive. So given the > >> GNU_USER_TARGET_STARTFILE_SPEC you pasted > >> earlier, "static" matches before "static-pie", causing the wrong start > >> files. > >> > >> It seems to me that the static-pie target complicates things more than > >> matching against static+pie individually. > >> > >> If I convert -static + -pie to -static-pie, then "static" won't be > >> matched in specs, where maybe it otherwise should. Same for -pie. > >> > >> Would you prefer to swallow -static and -pie and pass along only > >> -static-pie? Or forward them all along, and fix the specs which look > > > > Yes. When you see both -static and -pie. regardless of their relative > > order on command-line, you > > > > 1. Remove -static and -pie. > > 2. Add -static-pie. > > This assumes that -static -pie and -pie -static do not produce the working > executable. If they do, you can't change them.
That assumption is correct. Historically, GCC's specs have suppressed --dynamic-linker when -static is present. This means when ld sees -pie, it picks a builtin, wrong default dynamic linker name like "/lib64/ld.so.1" and stores it in the output PT_INTERP. Perhaps there were/are some obscure platforms on which the default worked, but in general it doesn't. Presumably on glibc-based systems you could have made it work as "dynamic linked pie but with no .so's" by adding your own -Wl,-dynamic-linker option, but I don't think that was supported usage. Rich
