On 09/01/15 12:49 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jan 2015, Daniel Micay wrote:
> 
>>> --with-specs="%{pie|fpic|fPIC|fpie|fPIE|fno-pic|fno-PIC|fno-pie|fno-PIE|shared|static|nostdlib|nodefaultlibs|nostartfiles:;:-fPIE
>>> -pie}"
>>>
>>> at configure time (using CONFIGURE_SPECS).
>>>
>>> I have no idea if the above is really the proper spec to use - why
>>> do you include static, nostdlib, nodefaultlibs and nostartfiles
>>> for example?  Similar, if I say
>>
>> PIE isn't supported for static executables by binutils, etc. so it
>> does need to exclude that. The checks for nostdlib, nodefaultlibs
> 
> Well - that would indicate excluding -pie if one of the link-time options 
> conflicting with it is used, -fPIE if one of the compile-time options 
> conflicting with it is used.  That way, "gcc -static file.c" would still 
> have the same effect as "gcc -c file.c; gcc -static file.o" (building a 
> PIE object, linking it into a non-PIE static executable), which makes 
> logical sense to me (although there may be no great benefit either way).

Sure, I agree. It should have separate lists of exceptions for both of
these.