Re: -static-pie and -static -pie

["H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:18 AM, Cory Fields <lists@coryfields.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 2:14 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:07 AM, Cory Fields <lists@coryfields.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:35 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Cory Fields <lists@coryfields.com> 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.
>>>
>>> My build system, and plenty of others I'm sure, already handle -static
>>> and -pie. Having that understood to mean "static-pie" would mean that
>>> the combination would now just work.
>>>
>>> Asking a different way, if I request -static and -pie, without -nopie,
>>> quietly creating non-pie binary seems like a bug. Is there a reason
>>> _not_ to interpret it as -static-pie in that case?
>>
>> GNU_USER_TARGET_STARTFILE_SPEC is defined as
>>
>> #define GNU_USER_TARGET_STARTFILE_SPEC \
>>   "%{shared:; \
>>      pg|p|profile:%{static-pie:grcrt1.o%s;:gcrt1.o%s}; \
>>      static:crt1.o%s; \
>>      static-pie:rcrt1.o%s; \
>>      " PIE_SPEC ":Scrt1.o%s; \
>>      :crt1.o%s} \
>>    crti.o%s \
>>    %{static:crtbeginT.o%s; \
>>      shared|static-pie|" PIE_SPEC ":crtbeginS.o%s; \
>>      :crtbegin.o%s} \
>>    %{fvtable-verify=none:%s; \
>>      fvtable-verify=preinit:vtv_start_preinit.o%s; \
>>      fvtable-verify=std:vtv_start.o%s} \
>>    " CRTOFFLOADBEGIN
>>
>> to pick a suitable crt1.o for static PIE when -static-pie is used.
>>
>> If gcc.c can convert ... -static ... -pie and ... -pie ... -static ... to
>> -static-pic for GNU_USER_TARGET_STARTFILE_SPEC, it
>> should work.
>>
>> --
>> H.J.
>
> Great, that's how I've fixed it locally. Would you consider accepting
> a patch for this?

I'd like to see it in GCC 8.  Please open a GCC bug and submit your
patch against it.

Thanks.

-- 
H.J.