Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: objcopy -I binary etc... Was: C23 thoughts and opinions
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2024 07:44:47 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <86tti6ku5c.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <v2l828$18v7f$1@dont-email.me> <v3a3k5$1ntrn$1@dont-email.me> <20240530180345.00003d9f@yahoo.com> <v3chc4$27uij$1@dont-email.me> <20240531161937.000063af@yahoo.com> <20240531162811.00006719@yahoo.com> <20240531164835.00007128@yahoo.com> <v3cldt$28n91$2@dont-email.me> <20240531173437.00003bee@yahoo.com> <v3d3ct$2b5sl$1@dont-email.me> <yMo6O.3723$zfC8.2197@fx35.iad> <v3dem9$2d2v4$1@dont-email.me> <TLu6O.6222$xPJ1.816@fx09.iad> <v3essl$2nsh7$1@dont-email.me> <86frtwq2lz.fsf@linuxsc.com> <2QG6O.11963$qQk3.6582@fx18.iad> <86bk4kp50e.fsf@linuxsc.com> <20240606145633.000061f5@yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2024 16:44:47 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d27732bb70530c4a14d68e0b12f92cb8";
	logging-data="1634015"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18xzZOvMAcxrILNs6hHjueMSVvkKAdJaho="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:s87qoZMy/hP1i97nGiaJ5m6oIlk=
	sha1:KdJZwrARoRDbqKhUSVWquMsZTjc=
Bytes: 2489

Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:

> On Sat, 01 Jun 2024 17:22:57 -0700
> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:

[..differences in gcc and clang that might be explained by ld...]

>> I expect you are right.  I run ld directly only rarely, and
>> certainly am no expert.  In my tests I was simply blindly
>> following the example shown in your posting (with some variations
>> after my attempts gave the wrong answer, trying to get it to
>> work).  It didn't occur to me to consider ld.
>>
>> Using clang for the final link step always gave the right answer,
>> if I remember correctly.
>
> I reproduced your findings.  The difference between gcc and clang is not
> in ld, but in ld invocation options.
> Specifically, gcc calls ld with -pie, clang calls ld without it.
> gcc default behaviour can be overwritten with -no-pie switch.
> I suppose that gcc4 has the same default as clang.

Makes sense.  Thank you for the explanation.