This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH, ld/ARM, ping] Mark bare-metal ARM targets as not supporting shared libraries
- From: Thomas Preudhomme <thomas dot preudhomme at foss dot arm dot com>
- To: Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Richard Earnshaw <richard dot earnshaw at arm dot com>, Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>, binutils at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 14:15:37 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH, ld/ARM, ping] Mark bare-metal ARM targets as not supporting shared libraries
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20170504231441.GC3345@bubble.grove.modra.org>
I'm glad you ask. In general arm-none-eabi targets being bare metal do not have
a loader to deal with shared libraries. However GNU ld itself does indeed does
have the support for shared library when built for such targets.
Having discussed further with my colleagues I now believe that this patch is not
appropriate. So far the only test that fail are link-time only, they do not
involve runtime. It is thus better to look into these failures. This can be
revisited later if a shared library runtime test is added at some point in the
Thanks for chimin in and sorry for the noise. Best regards,
On 05/05/17 00:14, Alan Modra wrote:
On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 10:09:10AM +0100, Thomas Preudhomme wrote:
On 27/04/17 16:37, Thomas Preudhomme wrote:
arm*-none-eabi* targets are bare-metal targets. As such they do not
support shared library. This patch adds these target to the list of
targets for which check_shared_lib_support returns false.
Since you CC'd me, what makes arm-none-eabi different to other ARM
targets that do support shared libs? I don't see anything different
in bfd, and ld/emulparams/armelf.sh says GENERATE_SHLIB_SCRIPT=yes.