From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/8822 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: [PATCH] don't define SHARED macro in the source Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2015 19:58:33 -0500 Message-ID: <20151108005833.GG3818@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20151107132404.GD8500@port70.net> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1446944329 30508 80.91.229.3 (8 Nov 2015 00:58:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 00:58:49 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-8835-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sun Nov 08 01:58:49 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZvEJl-0001CE-2i for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Sun, 08 Nov 2015 01:58:49 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 24122 invoked by uid 550); 8 Nov 2015 00:58:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 24098 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2015 00:58:45 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Original-Sender: Rich Felker Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:8822 Archived-At: On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 11:24:56PM +0000, Petr Hosek wrote: > We don't support static pie in our toolchain so I haven't really tested > that scenario but now I see why the SHARED macro is needed here. > > One option around this issue would be to avoid building rcrt1.c altogether, > but I'd like to avoid carrying an extra patch for that. The other option > would be to allow inline assembly in this case since it seems to be only > used as a guard. I'll see if the second option is feasible. As part of this release cycle, I plan to, by default, use the same .o files (built as PIC) for both libc.so and libc.a, and remove the SHARED macro. --disable-pic would then both imply --disable-shared and inhibit building of rcrt1.o. I could add a separate --disable-static-pie if you want to be able to use PIC but not static pie (not generate rcrt1.o) and your arch could force all of these, but my guess is that there's no such thing as PIC vs non-PIC for pnacl and it's some kind of higher-level byte code. Anyway, does that sound reasonable? BTW, how are you doing cancellation without asm? Rich