Hi Waldemar, On Tue, 2017-04-11 at 14:51 -0700, Vineet Gupta wrote: > On 04/11/2017 01:52 PM, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote: > > > > Hi Vineet, > > > > it seems static linking is totally broken for ARC and uClibc-ng: > > > > file root_nsim-arcv2_uclibc-ng_archs/bin/busybox? > > root_nsim-arcv2_uclibc-ng_archs/bin/busybox: ELF 32-bit LSB > > executable, *unknown arch 0xc3* version 1 (SYSV), dynamically > > linked, interpreter *empty*,?for GNU/Linux 4.8.0, stripped > > > > I am using arc-2016.09-release within OpenADK. > > > > Do you ever used static linking? > > > > I only test with nsim, but can't use any static binaries. > > > > best regards > > ?Waldemar > > I do test static linked busybox and last I checked 2016.09 seemed ok ! (below is > busybox built against prebuilt 2016.09 toolchain on github) > > $ file arc_initramfs_hs_1612-gnu-2016.09-BIG/bin/busybox_static > ELF 32-bit LSB executable, *unknown arch 0xc3* version 1 (SYSV), statically > linked, for GNU/Linux 4.8.0, not stripped > > Although I've seen this issue in different context - Linux kernel perf, Alexey u > remember ! Indeed there was a discussion on that regard in LKML. This is the first part of the thread: http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-snps-arc/2016-August/001431.html and here are last 2 messages in this thread: http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-snps-arc/2016-September/001454.html Conclusion was that for some reason final perf executable even if built with "-static" becomes a weird "dynamic" with no interpreter right as you saw. In fact Linux perf is still affected. If I build it from Linux v4.11-rc4 like that: ----------------->8-------------- make NO_LIBELF=1 NO_JVMTI=1 LDFLAGS=-static ----------------->8-------------- I see strange description of the resulting binary: ----------------->8-------------- file perf perf: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, *unknown arch 0xc3* version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, interpreter *empty*, for GNU/Linux 4.8.0, not stripped ----------------->8-------------- But if I build Busybox (I tried today's master) with prebuilt arc-2016.09 tools static busybox looks pretty ok: ----------------->8-------------- file busybox busybox: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, *unknown arch 0xc3* version 1 (SYSV), statically linked, for GNU/Linux 4.8.0, stripped ----------------->8-------------- That said something is definitely wrong here. In case of perf I was able to get a real "static" binary when excluded "--dynamic-list" option passed to the linker, see my initial patch here: http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-snps-arc/2016-August/001431.html So I may speculate that something "wrong" gets passed to LD when your busybox gets linked. I just made a simple test: ------------------------------>8-------------------------------- # cat test.c? #include <stdio.h> void main(void) { printf("Hello!\n"); } # cat dynamic-list? { main; }; # gcc -static -Wl,--dynamic-list=dynamic-list test.c? # file a.out? a.out: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (GNU/Linux), statically linked, for GNU/Linux 2.6.32, BuildID[sha1]=55823847c3640b89164ca7ae7c4382ed40c19da5, not stripped # arc-linux-gcc -static -Wl,--dynamic-list=dynamic-list test.c? # file a.out? a.out: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, *unknown arch 0xc3* version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, interpreter *empty*, for GNU/Linux 4.8.0, not stripped ------------------------------>8-------------------------------- My host?gcc version 6.3.1 20161221 (Red Hat 6.3.1-1) (GCC)? Cross?gcc version 6.2.1 20160824 (ARCv2 ISA Linux uClibc toolchain 2016.09). I think it's over to Cupertino to investigate now that magic difference :) -Alexey
