This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: SH FDPIC ABI spec/binutils and kernel conflict on flag definitions

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:01:49PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 04:53:35PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> > Rich Felker <> wrote:
> > 
> > > On the other hand, the only existing way to produce a binary that both
> > > (1) needs constant displacement, and (2) actually gets constant
> > > displacement from the kernel at load time, is to manually edit the ELF
> > > headers to flip the bit. So I really doubt any such binaries exist. Do
> > > you have a reason to believe they do?
> > 
> > Well, Fujitsu asked for it for FRV - I've no idea whether they have such
> > binaries still.
> OK. Can we get feedback from anyone who's actually using this code
> now? I don't see how the current situation is at all acceptable for
> anyone using it, but maybe I'm missing something. It seems programs
> built as FDPIC are going through all the ABI cost for FDPIC (function
> descriptors, restricted relative addressing) for absolutely no gain
> because the kernel just loads them like plain non-FDPIC ELF files...

I've now gotten gcc and my SH-FDPIC port of musl far enough along to
test on a real kernel/hardware, and I can confirm that the kernel's
interpretation of the bit is backwards, at least on SH. Since the code
is the same for all the other archs with FDPIC I think it's safe to
assume they're all broken. Patching the kernel to ignore the bit
yields shared text, as expected.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]