musl - Re: A question about if crti.s and crtn.s is not necessary?

Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87y1ske35k.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2022 13:13:59 +0100
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
To: 王洪亮 <wanghongliang@...ngson.cn>
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: A question about if crti.s and crtn.s is not necessary?

* Szabolcs Nagy:

> * 王洪亮 <wanghongliang@...ngson.cn> [2022-11-09 10:51:37 +0800]:
>> In LoongArch port, I found build musl and libc-test is OK without
>> crt/loongarch64/crti.s and crt/loongarch64/crtn.s,
>> 
>> so I want to ask if crti.s and crtn.s is not necessary in architecture?
>
> in musl the generic crti/crtn.o is empty.
> which works if no user code uses .init or .fini sections.
>
> the old way of doing ctors/dtors used .init/.fini but new targets use
> .init_array/.fini_array for a while now.
>
> if no language feature uses .init/.fini, should we support this?

New architectures are supposed to not use DT_INIT/DT_FINI (in glibc
terms, ELF_INITFINI is defined as 0) because they have been deprecated
in the toolchain for a long, long time.

Thanks,
Florian

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.