Re: [PATCH] Document that --enable-static-pie implies PIE

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

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>> --- a/manual/install.texi
>> +++ b/manual/install.texi
>> @@ -123,7 +123,8 @@ address without help from a dynamic linker.  All static programs as
>>  well as static tests are built as static PIE, except for those marked
>>  with no-pie.  The resulting glibc can be used with the GCC option,
>>  -static-pie, which is available with GCC 8 or above, to create static
>> -PIE.
>> +PIE.  This option also implies that dynamic position independent
>> +executable (PIE) is created by default.
>>
>>  @item --disable-profile
>>  Don't build libraries with profiling information.  You may want to use
>
> When the new text says that dynamic PIE is created by default, what does
> that mean?  Does it mean that my executables will automatically act as
> though I passed -fPIE by default when I link them or that support for
> -fPIE will be included in glibc?  If the latter, is it saying that such
> support will be included in the glibc distribution by default but that I
> can turn it off?  i.e. what is the option to unset this default, or what
> would be the option to turn it on if I don't --enable-static-pie?

How about

This option also implies that glibc programs and tests are created as
dynamic position independent executable (PIE) by default.

> Unrelated: while I'm reading this text
>
>>  Static PIE is similar to static executable,
>
> This is missing an article.  Perhaps it means something like
>
>         A static position independent executable is similar to a static
>         executable
>
> (adding "a" twice).  But that also feels strange --- isn't a static PIE
> a kind of static executable?  Maybe:
>
>         A static PIE is similar to a traditional static executable but
>         can be loaded at any address without help from a dynamic linker.
>
> (adding "a" twice and adding "traditional")
>

Can you submit a separate patch?


-- 
H.J.