From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 93013 invoked by alias); 1 Nov 2017 16:39:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 92128 invoked by uid 89); 1 Nov 2017 16:39:41 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mail-oi0-f47.google.com Received: from mail-oi0-f47.google.com (HELO mail-oi0-f47.google.com) (209.85.218.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 01 Nov 2017 16:39:31 +0000 Received: by mail-oi0-f47.google.com with SMTP id j126so5349410oib.8 for ; Wed, 01 Nov 2017 09:39:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=CStMXPLo9a40IV0LzTsMB5t45Wffy6AB8IgWUfkVMOs=; b=QzMT8VSsEIeUQFGHZEVwVR7ZTqqCDhPa+kNUg5ADXqya34TKYWvRhR89lGQDlUEtn8 bog8YT24ZKBbbdK2sNPm2YY+uo1nooU8kZlOqsCGIdQ2dyrULbt/PhC6A01Qo5sfGqeV MpNUPwaWl29IK9wepsUOdtY44PcTl2dGU9hxWNuMyerzq9mDq9K+4W3OGXDabK0V3YpV 8l12EY/1I7xildgDVF+ffA+xEQCkDwKyESXGPHKtv4GfY8Gbxtg8YYBhcVvnHIIQGsGm Z9NVXj1YfudH16ZR02hmyOYcicLYO3gr7MJO+Kt9e5ZvEHUCoq6LxFcTdJ1YhT3tHCtx ONOg== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaVKs2aKHzjtOxIhYustwIYh8FQpO7i9E8WM0TbRetr/rXuIHADd uWHKxm84pxyFPM1wtIAYf41zoEHUa4AcnO7SReM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+QU+iJtf13dtf1YvmKuSJcAzDZNpcqXpiVgUeYhb0RsxQgrBOGDlF6uoCjyFdDSo9+CQVU1dUs5IGYsjVf7Luk= X-Received: by 10.202.171.216 with SMTP id u207mr240613oie.430.1509554369582; Wed, 01 Nov 2017 09:39:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.74.168.200 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Nov 2017 09:39:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20171101163221.GA16240@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20171015131657.GA24340@gmail.com> <20171101163221.GA16240@brightrain.aerifal.cx> From: "H.J. Lu" Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2017 16:39:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use Pcrt1.o%s/gPcrt1.o%s for -static-pie To: Rich Felker Cc: GCC Patches , Joseph Myers Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-11/txt/msg00023.txt.bz2 On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Rich Felker wrote: > On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 06:16:57AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: >> crt1.o is used to create dynamic and non-PIE static executables. Static >> PIE needs to link with Pcrt1.o, instead of crt1.o, to relocate static PIE >> at run-time. When -pg is used with -static-pie, gPcrt1.o should be used. >> >> Tested on x86-64. OK for master? > > Is there a reason you didn't follow the existing naming practice here? > Openbsd and musl libc have both had static pie for a long time now and > have used rcrt1.o as the name. I wasn't aware of rcrt1.o and there is no reference to rcrt1.o in GCC at all. Does the FSF GCC support static PIE for musl libc? If not, is there a GCC bug for it? BTW, I don't mind replacing Pcrt1.o/gPcrt1.o with rcrt1.o/grcrt1.o. -- H.J.