diff mbox

[v2] x86emul/test: generate non-pie executable for 64bit builds

Message ID 20170925141104.3g6ipsudclcvmonj@citrix.com (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show

Commit Message

Wei Liu Sept. 25, 2017, 2:11 p.m. UTC 
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 07:58:15AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 25.09.17 at 15:40, <wei.liu2@citrix.com> wrote:
> > --- a/tools/tests/x86_emulator/Makefile
> > +++ b/tools/tests/x86_emulator/Makefile
> > @@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ $(addsuffix .c,$(SIMD)) $(addsuffix -avx.c,$(filter sse%,$(SIMD))):
> >  	ln -sf simd.c $@
> >  
> >  $(TARGET): x86_emulate.o test_x86_emulator.o
> > -	$(HOSTCC) -o $@ $^
> > +	$(HOSTCC) $(HOSTCFLAGS) -o $@ $^
> >  
> >  .PHONY: clean
> >  clean:
> > @@ -98,7 +98,9 @@ asm:
> >  
> >  asm/%: asm ;
> >  
> > -HOSTCFLAGS += $(CFLAGS_xeninclude) -I.
> > +HOSTCFLAGS-x86_64 :=
> > +$(call cc-option-add,HOSTCFLAGS-x86_64,HOSTCC,-no-pie)
> > +HOSTCFLAGS += $(CFLAGS_xeninclude) -I. $(HOSTCFLAGS-$(XEN_COMPILE_ARCH))
> 
> Hmm, so other than one could imply from gcc doc we get away
> without using -fno-PIE at all, i.e. it's only an issue with how
> linking is being done?

Yeah, it was ld that complained.

> Wouldn't it be better then to pass both (as
> long as supported, if we really care about older compilers here)?

I'm fine with that. -fno-PIE is supported a long time ago. I can fold in
the following diff to this patch.

Comments

Jan Beulich Sept. 25, 2017, 2:25 p.m. UTC | #1 
>>> On 25.09.17 at 16:11, <wei.liu2@citrix.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 07:58:15AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Wouldn't it be better then to pass both (as
>> long as supported, if we really care about older compilers here)?
> 
> I'm fine with that. -fno-PIE is supported a long time ago. I can fold in
> the following diff to this patch.
> 
> diff --git a/tools/tests/x86_emulator/Makefile
> b/tools/tests/x86_emulator/Makefile
> index 87064494d1..fbe02cd2f9 100644
> --- a/tools/tests/x86_emulator/Makefile
> +++ b/tools/tests/x86_emulator/Makefile
> @@ -98,7 +98,7 @@ asm:
> 
>  asm/%: asm ;
> 
> -HOSTCFLAGS-x86_64 :=
> +HOSTCFLAGS-x86_64 := -fno-PIE
>  $(call cc-option-add,HOSTCFLAGS-x86_64,HOSTCC,-no-pie)
>  HOSTCFLAGS += $(CFLAGS_xeninclude) -I.  $(HOSTCFLAGS-$(XEN_COMPILE_ARCH))

Feel free to commit with that addition (or tell me that I should),
or maybe Andrew could give his ack.

Thanks for your help here, Jan
Wei Liu Sept. 25, 2017, 2:27 p.m. UTC | #2 
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 08:25:43AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 25.09.17 at 16:11, <wei.liu2@citrix.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 07:58:15AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> Wouldn't it be better then to pass both (as
> >> long as supported, if we really care about older compilers here)?
> > 
> > I'm fine with that. -fno-PIE is supported a long time ago. I can fold in
> > the following diff to this patch.
> > 
> > diff --git a/tools/tests/x86_emulator/Makefile
> > b/tools/tests/x86_emulator/Makefile
> > index 87064494d1..fbe02cd2f9 100644
> > --- a/tools/tests/x86_emulator/Makefile
> > +++ b/tools/tests/x86_emulator/Makefile
> > @@ -98,7 +98,7 @@ asm:
> > 
> >  asm/%: asm ;
> > 
> > -HOSTCFLAGS-x86_64 :=
> > +HOSTCFLAGS-x86_64 := -fno-PIE
> >  $(call cc-option-add,HOSTCFLAGS-x86_64,HOSTCC,-no-pie)
> >  HOSTCFLAGS += $(CFLAGS_xeninclude) -I.  $(HOSTCFLAGS-$(XEN_COMPILE_ARCH))
> 
> Feel free to commit with that addition (or tell me that I should),
> or maybe Andrew could give his ack.
> 

I will commit it soon. I will add your ack too.

> Thanks for your help here, Jan
> 

You're welcome.
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/tools/tests/x86_emulator/Makefile
b/tools/tests/x86_emulator/Makefile
index 87064494d1..fbe02cd2f9 100644
--- a/tools/tests/x86_emulator/Makefile
+++ b/tools/tests/x86_emulator/Makefile
@@ -98,7 +98,7 @@  asm:

 asm/%: asm ;

-HOSTCFLAGS-x86_64 :=
+HOSTCFLAGS-x86_64 := -fno-PIE
 $(call cc-option-add,HOSTCFLAGS-x86_64,HOSTCC,-no-pie)
 HOSTCFLAGS += $(CFLAGS_xeninclude) -I.  $(HOSTCFLAGS-$(XEN_COMPILE_ARCH))