Re: Question related to -fPIC behaviour across architectures

[vincent Dupaquis <v.dupaquis@trusted-objects.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1146 bytes --]

Thanks for taking the time writing this down, I understand better now. 
It also matches gcc's documentation.

Regards,
     Vincent.

Le 03/05/2022 à 16:29, Florian Weimer a écrit :

> * vincent Dupaquis:
>
>> - Did I miss anything ?
> The linker can perform relaxations (e.g., elimination of GOT
> indirection) based on whole-program analysis, something the compiler
> cannot do.  Such optimizations are very much target-dependent, and they
> often need some previous ABI work to define new relaxable relocations
> for relocatable object files.
>
>> - Is there somewhere a common definition of what mean PIC for the
>>    different architectures ?
> Not really, not even for ELF.  There are some common assumptions in the
> background for ELF implementations (e.g., one canonical function
> address), but how you get there varies somewhat.
>
> Thanks,
> Florian
>
-- 

*Vincent Dupaquis*
Software security & Cryptography expert
06 24 58 17 05
/Europarc de Pichaury Bâtiment B8 1330 rue Guillibert Gautier de la 
Lauzière 13290 Aix-en-Provence/

www.trusted-objects.com <http://www.trusted-objects.com>

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 840 bytes --]