[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6a3e185eaaac4a1397abe43026004548d47ee305.camel@xry111.site>
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2022 13:01:27 +0800
From: Xi Ruoyao <xry111@...111.site>
To: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Cc: Jinyang He <hejinyang@...ngson.cn>,
WANG Xuerui <kernel@...0n.name>, loongarch@...ts.linux.dev,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Youling Tang <tangyouling@...ngson.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/5] LoongArch: Support toolchain with new relocation
types
On Tue, 2022-09-06 at 12:43 +0800, Huacai Chen wrote:
> > Note that -fpic/-fPIC is "position-independent code *suitable for
> > use in a shared library*", while -fpie/-fPIE is more like just
> > "position-independent code". The names of those options are confusing.
> > (When -fpic was invented first time, people mostly believed "PIC had
> > been only for shared libraries", so it's named -fpic instead of -shlib
> > or something.) IMO in the EFI stub for other ports, -fpie should be
> > used instead of -fpic as well because the EFI stub is not similar to a
> > shared library in any means.
> You are right, but I guess that Ard doesn't want to squash the efistub
> change into the LoongArch efistub support patch. :)
It only changes cflags-$(CONFIG_LOONGARCH), which is LoongArch specific.
And arm64 is also using -fpie.
Should I send the one-line EFI stub change to linux-efi first?
--
Xi Ruoyao <xry111@...111.site>
School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University
Powered by blists - more mailing lists