From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32799 invoked by alias); 30 Jan 2018 18:35:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 32789 invoked by uid 89); 30 Jan 2018 18:35:32 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*f:sk:CAApLim, H*i:ceeFM, H*i:sk:CAApLim, H*i:sk:gP0wnry X-HELO: mail-oi0-f41.google.com Received: from mail-oi0-f41.google.com (HELO mail-oi0-f41.google.com) (209.85.218.41) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 18:35:31 +0000 Received: by mail-oi0-f41.google.com with SMTP id j15so5400460oii.5 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 10:35:31 -0800 (PST) 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=gltSIAOUD8HmnvdZs1jvtsvNcLSmQsGuLlCT08WKRy4=; b=mS8JNnJ1msfVKK1EW2SBwoSzov72Tgwu3S/oyBHyQFSamjfNlz+t/Rdl3DOfjX0l/3 WZ9xgBQ03UuJQ61MxJD0K8U7FjAVTAPqIvfduioW/VvDixxDutxYX/rHumG7mKhExnJ0 Dh9cY+ZPR+ZtJwL+QKsiIysJK/zuNqy/vCnsigYBrnyYbmTFtxd4zsZLY8hDeVHDhp2W GDp4QCIfwxwMLJX39dFjHli4DDBeSk/+uNY4op1qsId3MKaZTtU+7IH5kXr4qYG5gVGo cW/TsyhCJLblcEo8OJxtd2MxLgh2X5TWNhEcIUjEXC89Jwr1aFayxJyMd7cuIIWHoe6V oj2g== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytcR890zCjt7XNevlvXryQsOCW1gbFV2bYfbGJycu5uGnRG/m0HS iM6Jcepp5U+q7LvMycsDIYn7lY/ZjA0nJvItE60= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226rbPGVsyZ1EPauGMEIP93PK9XG78Wj8vyvf56xjHCIJ4vfe3c3Q6xKHY3mKvipKNQ/rH5QWZUNixqICkzYRII= X-Received: by 10.202.242.84 with SMTP id q81mr20685079oih.334.1517337329719; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 10:35:29 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.74.177.2 with HTTP; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 10:35:29 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: "H.J. Lu" Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 18:35:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: -static-pie and -static -pie To: lists@coryfields.com Cc: GCC Development Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-01/txt/msg00253.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Cory Fields wrote: > Hi list > > I'm playing with -static-pie and musl, which seems to be in good shape > for 8.0.0. Nice work :) > > However, the fact that "gcc -static -pie" and "gcc -static-pie" > produce different results is very unexpected. I understand the case > for the new link-type, but merging the options when possible would be > a huge benefit to existing buildsystems that already cope with both > individually. > > My use-case: > I'd like to build with --enable-default-pie, and by adding "-static" Why not adding "-static-pie" instead of "-static"? > to my builds, produce static-pie binaries. But at the moment, that > attempts to add an interp section. > > So my question is, if no conflicting options are found, why not hoist > "-static -pie" to "-static-pie" ? > > Regards, > Cory -- H.J.