On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 4:37 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Rainer Orth > wrote: >> "H.J. Lu" writes: >> >>> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Joseph Myers wrote: >>>> On Tue, 19 May 2015, H.J. Lu wrote: >>>> >>>>> > I think the whole thing should be posted as one patch, with both the >>>>> > target-independent changes and the target-specific changes for all >>>>> > targets. >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> That is what makes me concerned. I have some simple target-specified >>>>> patches which weren't reviewed for years. What will happen if no one >>>> >>>> For any unreviewed patch, keep pinging weekly. >>>> >>>>> reviews some simple target-specified changes due to >>>>> >>>>> 1. Reviewers don't have access to those targets. >>>>> 2. Target maintainers aren't review them. >>>>> 3. There are no clear maintainers for those targets. >>>> >>>> I've already said in >>>> that, given >>>> target maintainers CC:ed, I might be inclined to approve the patch on the >>>> basis of allowing them a week to test their target changes. >>>> >>> >>> Here is the complete patch. Tested on Linux/x86-64. It is also >>> available on hjl/pie/master branch in git mirror. >> >> I just noticed that with --enable-default-pie, while crtbeginS.o is >> linked into the executable, crtend.o is used, while with an explicit >> -pie, crtendS.o is taken. Shouldn't GNU_USER_TARGET_ENDFILE_SPEC have >> the same treatment as GNU_USER_TARGET_STARTFILE_SPEC already did? >> >> * config/gnu-user.h (GNU_USER_TARGET_STARTFILE_SPEC): Use >> PIE_SPEC and NO_PIE_SPEC if HAVE_LD_PIE is defined. >> > > Here is a patch. OK for trunk? > This patch requires: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-06/msg01782.html since "pie" may not be used in any SPECs. Here is the updated combined patch. OK to install? Thanks. -- H.J.