Change Details

(1) {gcc,clang} -fuse-ld=bfd -pie -fPIE -nostdlib a.c => .interp created (2) {gcc,clang} -fuse-ld=lld -pie -fPIE -nostdlib a.c => .interp not created (3) {gcc,clang} -fuse-ld=lld -pie -fPIE -nostdlib a.c a.so => .interp created The inconsistency of (2) is due to the condition `!Config->SharedFiles.empty()`. To make lld behave more like ld.bfd, we could change the condition to: Config->HasDynSymTab && !Config->DynamicLinker.empty() && Script->needsInterpSection(); However, that would have some inconsistency: (4) {gcc,clang} -fuse-ld=bfd -no-pie -nostdlib a.c => .interp not created In contrast, `!Config->DynamicLinker.empty() && Script->needsInterpSection()` is both simple and consistent. In ld.bfd and gold, the condition to create .interp is ANDed with (not -shared). That is because they have default --dynamic-linker. Since lld doesn't have default --dynamic-linker, and compiler drivers (gcc/clang) don't pass --dynamic-linker with -shared, we do not need the condition Config->Shared. In addition, Direct ld users should not specify --dynamic-linker for a -shared link.

(1) {gcc,clang} -fuse-ld=bfd -pie -fPIE -nostdlib a.c => .interp created (2) {gcc,clang} -fuse-ld=lld -pie -fPIE -nostdlib a.c => .interp not created (3) {gcc,clang} -fuse-ld=lld -pie -fPIE -nostdlib a.c a.so => .interp created The inconsistency of (2) is due to the condition `!Config->SharedFiles.empty()`. To make lld behave more like ld.bfd, we could change the condition to: Config->HasDynSymTab && !Config->DynamicLinker.empty() && Script->needsInterpSection(); However, that would bring another inconsistency as can be observed with: (4) {gcc,clang} -fuse-ld=bfd -no-pie -nostdlib a.c => .interp not created So instead, use `!Config->DynamicLinker.empty() && Script->needsInterpSection()`, which is both simple and consistent in these cases. The inconsistency likely originated from ld.bfd and gold's choice to have a default --dynamic-linker. Their condition to create .interp is ANDed with (not -shared). Since lld doesn't have a default --dynamic-linker, and compiler drivers (gcc/clang) don't pass --dynamic-linker with -shared, we do not need the condition Config->Shared. For direct ld users, they are not suppoped to specify --dynamic-linker for a -shared link.

(1) {gcc,clang} -fuse-ld=bfd -pie -fPIE -nostdlib a.c => .interp created (2) {gcc,clang} -fuse-ld=lld -pie -fPIE -nostdlib a.c => .interp not created (3) {gcc,clang} -fuse-ld=lld -pie -fPIE -nostdlib a.c a.so => .interp created The inconsistency of (2) is due to the condition `!Config->SharedFiles.empty()`. To make lld behave more like ld.bfd, we could change the condition to: Config->HasDynSymTab && !Config->DynamicLinker.empty() && Script->needsInterpSection(); However, that would have somebring another inconsistency: as can be observed with: (4) {gcc,clang} -fuse-ld=bfd -no-pie -nostdlib a.c => .interp not created In contrastSo instead, use `!Config->DynamicLinker.empty() && Script->needsInterpSection()`, which is both simple and consistent in these cases. In ld.bfd and gold, the condition to create .interp is ANDed with (notThe inconsistency likely originated from ld.bfd and gold's choice to -shared). That is because they have default --dynamic-linker. Sincehave a default --dynamic-linker. Their condition to create .interp is lld doesn't have default --dynamic-linker,ANDed with (not -shared). and compiler driversSince lld doesn't have a default (gcc/clang) don't pass --dynamic-linker with -sharedr, we do not need theand compiler drivers (gcc/clang) don't pass condition Config->Shared. In addition--dynamic-linker with -shared, Direct ld users should notwe do not need the condition Config->Shared. For direct ld users, they are not suppoped to specify --dynamic-linker for a -shared link.