Use PIE_SPEC/NO_PIE_SPEC for crtend.o/crtendS.o

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Rainer Orth
<ro@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:
> "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 19 May 2015, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>
>>>> > I think the whole thing should be posted as one patch, with both the
>>>> > target-independent changes and the target-specific changes for all
>>>> > targets.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> That is what makes me concerned.  I have some simple target-specified
>>>> patches which weren't reviewed for years. What will happen if no one
>>>
>>> For any unreviewed patch, keep pinging weekly.
>>>
>>>> reviews some simple target-specified changes due to
>>>>
>>>> 1. Reviewers don't have access to those targets.
>>>> 2. Target maintainers aren't review them.
>>>> 3. There are no clear maintainers for those targets.
>>>
>>> I've already said in
>>> <https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-05/msg00593.html> that, given
>>> target maintainers CC:ed, I might be inclined to approve the patch on the
>>> basis of allowing them a week to test their target changes.
>>>
>>
>> Here is the complete patch.  Tested on Linux/x86-64.  It is also
>> available on hjl/pie/master branch in git mirror.
>
> I just noticed that with --enable-default-pie, while crtbeginS.o is
> linked into the executable, crtend.o is used, while with an explicit
> -pie, crtendS.o is taken.  Shouldn't GNU_USER_TARGET_ENDFILE_SPEC have
> the same treatment as GNU_USER_TARGET_STARTFILE_SPEC already did?
>
>         * config/gnu-user.h (GNU_USER_TARGET_STARTFILE_SPEC): Use
>         PIE_SPEC and NO_PIE_SPEC if HAVE_LD_PIE is defined.
>

Here is a patch.  OK for trunk?

Thanks.

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 04:37:29AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Rainer Orth
> <ro@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:
> > "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 19 May 2015, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> > I think the whole thing should be posted as one patch, with both the
> >>>> > target-independent changes and the target-specific changes for all
> >>>> > targets.
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> >>>> That is what makes me concerned.  I have some simple target-specified
> >>>> patches which weren't reviewed for years. What will happen if no one
> >>>
> >>> For any unreviewed patch, keep pinging weekly.
> >>>
> >>>> reviews some simple target-specified changes due to
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. Reviewers don't have access to those targets.
> >>>> 2. Target maintainers aren't review them.
> >>>> 3. There are no clear maintainers for those targets.
> >>>
> >>> I've already said in
> >>> <https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-05/msg00593.html> that, given
> >>> target maintainers CC:ed, I might be inclined to approve the patch on the
> >>> basis of allowing them a week to test their target changes.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Here is the complete patch.  Tested on Linux/x86-64.  It is also
> >> available on hjl/pie/master branch in git mirror.
> >
> > I just noticed that with --enable-default-pie, while crtbeginS.o is
> > linked into the executable, crtend.o is used, while with an explicit
> > -pie, crtendS.o is taken.  Shouldn't GNU_USER_TARGET_ENDFILE_SPEC have
> > the same treatment as GNU_USER_TARGET_STARTFILE_SPEC already did?
> >
> >         * config/gnu-user.h (GNU_USER_TARGET_STARTFILE_SPEC): Use
> >         PIE_SPEC and NO_PIE_SPEC if HAVE_LD_PIE is defined.
> >
> 
> Here is a patch.  OK for trunk?
> 
> Thanks.

I'd like to check in this patch.  Any comments, objections?

Thanks.

H.J.
> From 50bebf531193c18efb0982ac119694aa9f650e44 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 03:04:56 -0700
> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Use PIE_SPEC/NO_PIE_SPEC for crtend.o/crtendS.o
> 
> We need to link with crtend.o and crtendS.o properly for GCC configured
> to generate PIE by default.
> 
> 	* config/gnu-user.h (GNU_USER_TARGET_ENDFILE_SPEC): Use
> 	PIE_SPEC and NO_PIE_SPEC if HAVE_LD_PIE is defined.
> ---
>  gcc/config/gnu-user.h | 9 +++++++++
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/gcc/config/gnu-user.h b/gcc/config/gnu-user.h
> index 2fcb55d..5b3576b 100644
> --- a/gcc/config/gnu-user.h
> +++ b/gcc/config/gnu-user.h
> @@ -67,11 +67,20 @@ see the files COPYING3 and COPYING.RUNTIME respectively.  If not, see
>     object constructed before entering `main', followed by a normal
>     GNU userspace "finalizer" file, `crtn.o'.  */
>  
> +#if defined HAVE_LD_PIE
> +#define GNU_USER_TARGET_ENDFILE_SPEC \
> +  "%{fvtable-verify=none:%s; \
> +     fvtable-verify=preinit:vtv_end_preinit.o%s; \
> +     fvtable-verify=std:vtv_end.o%s} \
> +   %{shared:crtendS.o%s;: %{" PIE_SPEC ":crtendS.o%s} \
> +   %{" NO_PIE_SPEC ":crtend.o%s}} crtn.o%s"
> +#else
>  #define GNU_USER_TARGET_ENDFILE_SPEC \
>    "%{fvtable-verify=none:%s; \
>       fvtable-verify=preinit:vtv_end_preinit.o%s; \
>       fvtable-verify=std:vtv_end.o%s} \
>     %{shared|pie:crtendS.o%s;:crtend.o%s} crtn.o%s"
> +#endif
>  #undef  ENDFILE_SPEC
>  #define ENDFILE_SPEC GNU_USER_TARGET_ENDFILE_SPEC
>  
> -- 
> 2.1.0
>

On Sun, 28 Jun 2015, H.J. Lu wrote:

> > Here is a patch.  OK for trunk?
> > 
> > Thanks.
> 
> I'd like to check in this patch.  Any comments, objections?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> H.J.
> > From 50bebf531193c18efb0982ac119694aa9f650e44 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
> > Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 03:04:56 -0700
> > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Use PIE_SPEC/NO_PIE_SPEC for crtend.o/crtendS.o
> > 
> > We need to link with crtend.o and crtendS.o properly for GCC configured
> > to generate PIE by default.
> > 
> > 	* config/gnu-user.h (GNU_USER_TARGET_ENDFILE_SPEC): Use
> > 	PIE_SPEC and NO_PIE_SPEC if HAVE_LD_PIE is defined.

OK.