This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Question about ld_plugin_output_file_type and "-fpic" option
- From: Alexander Ivchenko <aivchenk at gmail dot com>
- To: Cary Coutant <ccoutant at google dot com>
- Cc: binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 23:22:42 +0400
- Subject: Re: Question about ld_plugin_output_file_type and "-fpic" option
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CACysShhtHBVrnj+-7==fC_WDY4V9mBBjwvifY9t5DsB45DZxYg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAHACq4pUhmG42G6x5kopWMBfjnDLuJ899M6uedOHfbtf89LWZA at mail dot gmail dot com>
Thanks! It became much more clear now :)
2014-03-20 21:29 GMT+04:00 Cary Coutant <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
>> "-fpic" option is turned on by default for Android compiler (both gcc
>> and llvm), so if we run the compiler on a .c file and get an
>> executable - it will be compiled and linked as position independent
>> code (e.g. no COPY relocs).
>> However, if we add an lto mechanism into account, the thing will be
>> different. As far as I understand, for gcc case "-fpic" option will be
>> given through temporary file, but llvm will rely on
>> ld_plugin_output_file_type of the linker, which in the case described
>> above would be just LDPO_EXEC which is not position independent. And
>> so for "-fpic" and lto we will get copy relocations and stuff.
> GCC records most of the options (excluding some like front-end and
> driver-specific options) in the IR file so that it can use the same
> options when it does the link-time translation (LTRANS). It sounds
> like LLVM isn't doing that (or at least isn't recording the -fpic
> option). If true, that sounds to me like a bug in LLVM.
>> Since we allow to compile and link an executable with "-fpic" (I know
>> that it is recommended to make an executable "-fpie" but I'm
>> describing how the default compiling is done) what are the assumptions
>> on a resulting executable? Should there be another entry in
>> ld_plugin_output_file_type for that? "-fpic" is not given to a linker
>> in any way, can we say that the resulting executable will be a
>> position independent?
> No, the compiler shouldn't depend on the output file type to determine
> what compile-time options are needed -- there are too many options and
> this would result in a combinatorial explosion.
> The LDPO_PIE option is there because -pie is a linker option, and the
> compiler has no other way of knowing that it's generating code for a
> PIE (the design originally assumed that the -fpie compiler option
> would be passed to all translation units, but was added later to allow
> the optimizer more flexibility).