llvm dev - Jan 2017 - Reloc::Default should trigger PIC on plateformq where PIE is the defaul

Pretty all is in the title. Is there a reason why this isn't done ? With
debian and ubuntu switching to PIE by default, this is become more and more
of a hassle to get this working properly, and I'd rather see that fixed in
LLVM rather than in each driver that do something with it.

Has someone already looked into this ? If so, what are the conclusions ?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170109/8edcb430/attachment.html>

Amaury SECHET via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes:
> Pretty all is in the title. Is there a reason why this isn't done ?
With
> debian and ubuntu switching to PIE by default, this is become more and more
> of a hassle to get this working properly, and I'd rather see that fixed
in
> LLVM rather than in each driver that do something with it.
>
> Has someone already looked into this ? If so, what are the conclusions ?
I did some time ago. My memory is fuzzy, but I think my idea was to
remove "Default" completely and have the caller fully specify what the
desired reloc model was.

A target construction can then take an Optional<Model> and map None to
whatever default it wants.

Cheers,
Rafael

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 8:15 AM, Rafael Avila de Espindola via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Amaury SECHET via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes:
>
>> Pretty all is in the title. Is there a reason why this isn't done ?
With
>> debian and ubuntu switching to PIE by default, this is become more and
more
>> of a hassle to get this working properly, and I'd rather see that
fixed in
>> LLVM rather than in each driver that do something with it.
>>
>> Has someone already looked into this ? If so, what are the conclusions
?
>
> I did some time ago. My memory is fuzzy, but I think my idea was to
> remove "Default" completely and have the caller fully specify
what the
> desired reloc model was.
>
> A target construction can then take an Optional<Model> and map None
to
> whatever default it wants.
>
Rough plan (previously discussed): https://reviews.llvm.org/D21100#455440
This is needed to LTO the FreeBSD base system, among others.

-- 
Davide

"There are no solved problems; there are only problems that are more
or less solved" -- Henri Poincare